OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S EMERGENCY MOTION

LINDA V. PARKER, District Judge.

On September 3, 2019, Defendant pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to conspiracy to commit health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Defendant agreed to the entry of a forfeiture money judgment against him in favor of the United States in the amount of $2,388,810.04. (Plea Agreement at 8, ECF No. 69 at Pg ID 407.) Since that time, an issue has arisen regarding the calculation of the guideline range agreed to in the plea agreement. Specifically, Defendant contends that the amount of loss used to calculate the guideline range is incorrect. At a conference before the Court on January 13, 2020, the parties agreed to a process to address the loss calculation issue.

On January 31, 2020, the United States contacted Defendant's counsel, indicating that Defendant had to deposit with the United States Marshal's Service the $600,000 held in an account in Defendant's mother's name, which Defendant had transferred to her prior to June 15, 2019.1 In his emergency motion, Defendant asks the Court issue a briefing schedule on the Government's claim to seize those funds and that any ruling on the forfeiture be held in abeyance until the parties settle the amount of loss issue. Defendant maintains that the loss calculation issue and the forfeiture issue are interrelated, not separate issues. This Court does not agree.

Defendant agreed in the plea agreement to a forfeiture judgment in the amount set forth above. This amount is distinct from the amount of restitution set forth in the plea agreement, and the latter total was the amount used to calculate the guideline range. (See Plea Agreement at 6, ECF No. 69 at Pg ID 405; see also Guideline Worksheet A, ECF No. 69 at Pg ID 417.) The forfeiture section of the plea agreement contains the following language:

(Plea Agreement at 8, ECF No. 69 at Pg ID 407, emphasis added.) Pursuant to the referenced language in the plea agreement, the money Defendant admittedly transferred to his mother's account while this action was pending is subject to forfeiture regardless of whether the funds are directly or indirectly traceable to Defendant's conspiracy to commit health care and wire fraud. Defendant argues in his motion that the Court must find a nexus between the property and the offense before the Government can require the forfeiture of the property. (Def.'s Mot. ¶ 9, ECF No. 115 at Pg ID 969.) However, Defendant's agreement to forfeit monies traceable to the conspiracy and any substitute assets renders such a determination unnecessary. Further, Defendant agreed to the entry of orders of forfeiture "incorporating forfeiture of the assets enumerated in this section and the abovereferenced money judgment . . . following [his] guilty plea . . .." (Id. at 9, Pg ID 408.)

In short, the Court does not see a need for briefing on the forfeiture issue and does not see a reason to delay a ruling until the parties settle the amount of loss issue. The Government has not filed a motion to withdraw the plea agreement. Thus, the Court has no basis on which to determine whether any motion would be premature or unwarranted.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's emergency motion (ECF No. 115) is DENIED.