USA v. Walters, et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:22-cr-10014-SOH Document505- Filed 10/16/24 Page 1 of 3 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
Vv. Case No. 1:22-CR-10014-012
MICHAEL CUMMINGS
a/k/a “Main” )
MONEY JUDGMENT

On October 16, 2024, the Defendant pleaded guilty to Count One of the Superseding
Indictment, charging him with conspiring to distribute, and to possess with intent to distribute,
methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
841(b)(1)(C).

The Superseding Indictment also contains a Notice of Intent to Seek Criminal Forfeiture
(hereinafter the “Forfeiture Allegation”). In the Forfeiture Allegation, the United States seeks
forfeiture, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853, of all property involved in the offense, or that is traceable
to property involved in the offense, including any proceeds obtained directly or indirectly from the
offense. Inthe event that, by any act or omission of the Defendant, forfeitable property cannot be
located despite due diligence, has been transferred, sold or deposited with a third party, has been
placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, has substantially diminished in value, or has been
commingled with other property that cannot be subdivided without difficulty, the United States
also seeks forfeiture of substitute property, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461 (c).

In their written Plea Agreement, the parties agree that the Defendant shall forfeit any and
all right, title and/or interest to or in a money judgment in the amount of one hundred thousand
dollars ($100,000.00) in United States Currency, representing proceeds the Defendant obtained

directly or indirectly as the result of committing the offense described in Count One of the

Money Judgment — U.S. v. Cummings (1:22-CR-10014-12) — Page 1 of 3

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 1:22-cr-10014-SOH Document505- Filed 10/16/24 Page 2 of 3 PagelD #:

<pagelD>

Superseding Indictment. The parties further stipulate and agree that this is a sum in aggregate

representing property that constitutes, or is derived from, or is traceable to the proceeds obtained

from the commission of the offense of conviction. The Defendant also agrees to execute any and

all documents requested by the United States to facilitate or complete the forfeiture process. The

Defendant further agreed not to contest, or to assist any other person or entity in contesting, the

forfeiture of property seized in connection with this case.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:

l.

That a money judgment in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00)
in United States Currency shall be entered against the Defendant, Michael Cummings,
as proceeds obtained indirectly or directly from the conduct for which the Defendant
has been convicted;

That the Defendant shall execute any and all documents requested by the United States
to facilitate or complete any subsequent forfeiture processes;

That the Defendant shall not contest or assist any other person or entity in contesting,
the forfeiture of property seized in connection with this case;

That, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(3), upon entry of this
judgment, the United States is authorized to seize any specific property or assets that
are subject to forfeiture as set forth herein in this order and according to the terms of
the plea agreement, and to conduct any discovery the Court may consider proper in
identifying, locating, or disposing of such property or assets;

That, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(c)(I), no ancillary
proceeding is required to the extent that a forfeiture consists of a money judgment;

That, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(4), any order of forfeiture
becomes final as to the Defendant at sentencing;

That, tf the Defendant does not pay the one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) at
sentencing and those assets:

a. Cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;
b. Have been transferred to, or deposited with a third party; or
c. Have been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court;

then any other property of the Defendant, up to the value of the total amount of forfeited
property, shall be forfeited to the United States as substitute assets pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 982(b)(1), incorporating by reference 21 U.S.C. § 853(p);

Money Judgment — U.S. v. Cummings (1:22-CR-10014-12) — Page 2 of 3

Case 1:22-cr-10014-SOH Document505- Filed 10/16/24 Page 3 of 3 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

8. That, regarding any substitute assets seized to satisfy this Order, the Defendant shall be
credited the appraised value of each asset, to be applied towards the $100,000 forfeited;
and

9. That the Defendant will be entitled to an offset against any restitution ordered to the

extent that property forfeited to satisfy this money judgment or proceeds of the sale of
forfeited property is remitted to any victim, if applicable.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 16" day of October 2024.

HON. SUSAN O. HICKEY ‘
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Reviewed and consented to by:

r, Counsel for Defendant

Drew Curh's

Graham Jones, Assistant tyS; Attorney

Money Judgment — U.S. v. Cummings (1:22-CR-10014-12) — Page 3 of 3