United States v. Harrell – Do It For The Caselaw

Holding: The Sixth Circuit affirmed the forfeiture order, ruling that procedural errors in the timing and inclusion of forfeiture in the judgment were harmless and did not require vacatur.
Standard: Harmless error and plain error review
Vote: The panel unanimously affirmed the district court's judgment.
Practical effect: Lower courts may correct clerical omissions in forfeiture judgments under Rule thirty-six without vacating sentences, provided the error is harmless and does not prejudice the defendant's substantial rights.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed a criminal forfeiture order despite the district court's procedural delays and failure to include the forfeiture in the initial judgment, ruling that the errors were harmless and did not warrant vacatur.

Background

Jeremy Wayne Harrell was convicted of stealing government funds while receiving Veterans Affairs benefits. During sentencing, the district court orally imposed a sentence but deferred the forfeiture determination, failing to include it in the initial written judgment. The court later issued an order of forfeiture and amended the judgment months after sentencing to include the forfeiture amount of one hundred eight thousand four hundred fifty-four dollars and eighty-eight cents.

The court’s reasoning

The court held that the district court’s delay in entering the forfeiture judgment violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure thirty-two point two but was harmless error. The court further found that while the district court violated Rule forty-three regarding the right to presence during the amendment, this did not affect Harrell’s substantial rights. The invited-error doctrine was rejected because the district court, not the defendant, caused the procedural confusion.

We hold that vacatur of Harrell’s forfeiture sentence is unnecessary.

United States v. Harrell, No. 25-5556 (6th Cir. July 2, 2026)

What it means going forward

Lower courts may correct clerical omissions in forfeiture judgments under Rule thirty-six without vacating sentences, provided the error is harmless and does not prejudice the defendant’s substantial rights.