Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10122813
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
United States v. Jones
No. 10122813 · Decided September 20, 2024
No. 10122813·Ninth Circuit · 2024·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
September 20, 2024
Citation
No. 10122813
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 20 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-1929
D.C. No.
Plaintiff - Appellee, 1:21-cr-00019-JCC-6
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MONIQUE JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-1932
23-1929
D.C. No.
Plaintiff - Appellee, 1:21-cr-00019-JCC-7
1:21-cr-00019-JCC-6
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MEKAYDA D. JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the District Court of Guam
John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 17, 2024**
Before: WARDLAW, BADE, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Monique and Mekayda D. Jones appeal from
the forfeiture order and in personam money judgments imposed pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(C) and 982(a)(2)(A) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), upon
appellants’ jury-trial convictions for wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud,
and conspiracy to launder money. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we vacate and remand.
As the government concedes, appellants were incorrectly ordered to forfeit
all of the fraud proceeds that were processed through their accounts, rather than the
amounts that “came to rest with” them. United States v. Thompson, 990 F.3d 680,
691 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that joint and several liability does not apply to
forfeiture judgments under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), which must reflect only the
amount left with the defendant after “the loot was divided among the
conspirators”). Accordingly, we vacate the forfeiture order and in personam
money judgments entered against appellants, and remand for the district court to
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2 23-1929 & 23-1932
recalculate the forfeiture amounts owed by appellants consistent with Thompson.
VACATED and REMANDED.
3 23-1929 & 23-1932
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 20 2024 MOLLY C.
Key Points
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 20 2024 MOLLY C.
02COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No.
03Plaintiff - Appellee, 1:21-cr-00019-JCC-7 1:21-cr-00019-JCC-6 v.
04* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 20 2024 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for United States v. Jones in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on September 20, 2024.
Use the citation No. 10122813 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.