October Term 2023 · Docket 22-7386
Does a missed deadline for a forfeiture notice void a criminal sentence?
The dispute centers on whether a court must fix a missed deadline for a forfeiture notice or if the error is harmless.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Guarnieri argued the deadline is mandatory but the consequence is the real issue.
Justice Gorsuch asked how the harmless error rule applies to this specific violation.
Chief Justice Roberts suggested the court could simply issue the late notice to fix the error.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 53-37 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 53-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 21-33 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 21-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 55-15 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 55-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 19-35 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 19-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 51-53 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 51-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-43 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 55-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 55-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 55-25 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 55-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 35-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 35-9
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the legal effect of a missed deadline. The government argues the error is harmless. The defendant argues the error requires a new hearing.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-17
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 27, 2024.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-15
What each side wants
The defendant wants the sentence set aside because the court missed a mandatory deadline.
The government wants the sentence to stand because the defendant suffered no real harm.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-17
What each side says
The defendant argues the deadline is mandatory and the error requires a new hearing.
The government argues the error is harmless because the defendant had actual notice.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-17
What the justices asked
Justice Thomas asked if any third parties claimed the property.
Justice Kagan asked if a mandatory rule allows waiver unlike a jurisdictional rule.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 53-37 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 53-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 21-33 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 21-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 55-15 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 55-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 19-35 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 19-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 51-53 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 51-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-43 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 55-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 55-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 55-25 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 55-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 35-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 35-9
Why it matters
This case defines how courts handle missed procedural deadlines. It determines whether a technical error voids a sentence or if the error is harmless. The outcome shapes future criminal sentencing procedures.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-17
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 53-37 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 53-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 21-33 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 21-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 55-15 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 55-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 19-35 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 19-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 51-53 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 51-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-43 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 55-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 55-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 55-25 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 55-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 35-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 35-9
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Verified official opinions and orders
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-17
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.