Common use of Rep Clause in Contracts

Rep. No. 91–1444 (part I), 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 81–85 (1970). Under the common law, in a criminal forfeiture pro- ceeding the defendant was apparently entitled to no- xxxx, trial, and a special jury finding on the factual is- sues surrounding the declaration of forfeiture which followed his criminal conviction. Subdivision (c)(2) pro- vides for notice. Changes in rules 31 and 32 provide for a special jury finding and for a judgment authorizing the Attorney General to seize the interest or property forfeited. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1979 AMENDMENT The amendment to rule 7(c)(2) is intended to clarify its meaning. Subdivision (c)(2) was added in 1972, and, as noted in the Advisory Committee Note thereto, was ‘‘intended to provide procedural implementation of the recently enacted criminal forfeiture provision of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Title IX, § 1963, and the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Title II, § 408(a)(2).’’ These provi- sions reestablished a limited common law criminal for- feiture, necessitating the addition of subdivision (c)(2) and corresponding changes in rules 31 and 32, for at common law the defendant in a criminal forfeiture pro- ceeding was entitled to notice, trial, and a special jury finding on the factual issues surrounding the declara- tion of forfeiture which followed his criminal convic- tion. Although there is some doubt as to what forfeitures should be characterized as ‘‘punitive’’ rather than ‘‘re- medial,’’ see Note, 62 Cornell L.Rev. 768 (1977), subdivi- sion (c)(2) is intended to apply to those forfeitures which are criminal in the sense that they result from a special verdict under rule 31(e) and a judgment under rule 32(b)(2), and not to those resulting from a separate in rem proceeding. Because some confusion in this re- gard has resulted from the present wording of subdivi- sion (c)(2), United States x. Xxxx, 521 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1975), a clarifying amendment is in order. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1987 AMENDMENT The amendments are technical. No substantive change is intended. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2000 AMENDMENT The rule is amended to reflect new Rule 32.2, which now governs criminal forfeiture procedures. GAP Report—Rule 7. The Committee initially made no changes to the published draft of the Rule 7 amend- ment. However, because of changes to Rule 32.2(a), dis- cussed infra, the proposed language has been changed to reflect that the indictment must provide notice of an intent to seek forfeiture. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2002 AMENDMENT The language of Rule 7 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Criminal Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic. The Committee has deleted the references to ‘‘hard labor’’ in the rule. This punishment is not found in cur- rent federal statutes. The Committee added an exception for criminal con- tempt to the requirement in Rule 7(a)(1) that a prosecu- tion for felony must be initiated by indictment. This is Rule 8 TITLE 18, APPENDIX—RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Page 42 consistent with case law, e.g., United States x. Xxxxxxxxx, 544 F.2d 1383 (7th Cir. 1976), which has sustained the use of the special procedures for instituting criminal con- tempt proceedings found in Rule 42. While indictment is not a required method of bringing felony criminal contempt charges, however, it is a permissible one. See United States x. Xxxxxxxx, 622 F.2d 830 (5th Cir. 1980). No change in practice is intended. The title of Rule 7(c)(3) has been amended. The Com- mittee believed that potential confusion could arise with the use of the term ‘‘harmless error.’’ Rule 52, which deals with the issues of harmless error and plain error, is sufficient to address the topic. Potentially, the topic of harmless error could arise with regard to any of the other rules and there is insufficient need to high- light the term in Rule 7. Rule 7(c)(3), on the other hand, focuses specifically on the effect of an error in the cita- tion of authority in the indictment. That material re- mains but without any reference to harmless error. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2009 AMENDMENT The time set in the former rule at 10 days has been revised to 14 days. See the Committee Note to Rule 45(a).

Rep. No. 91–1444 (part I), 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 81–85 (1970). Under the common law, in a criminal forfeiture pro- ceeding the defendant was apparently entitled to no- xxxx, trial, and a special jury finding on the factual is- sues surrounding the declaration of forfeiture which followed his criminal conviction. Subdivision (c)(2) pro- vides for notice. Changes in rules 31 and 32 provide for a special jury finding and for a judgment authorizing the Attorney General to seize the interest or property forfeited. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1979 AMENDMENT Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1979 Amendment The amendment to rule 7(c)(2) is intended to clarify its meaning. Subdivision (c)(2) was added in 1972, and, as noted in the Advisory Committee Note thereto, was ‘‘intended to provide procedural implementation of the recently enacted criminal forfeiture provision of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Title IX, § 1963, and the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Title II, § 408(a)(2).’’ These provi- sions reestablished a limited common law criminal for- feiture, necessitating the addition of subdivision (c)(2) and corresponding changes in rules 31 and 32, for at common law the defendant in a criminal forfeiture pro- ceeding was entitled to notice, trial, and a special jury finding on the factual issues surrounding the declara- tion of forfeiture which followed his criminal convic- tion. Rule 8 TITLE 18, APPENDIX—RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Although there is some doubt as to what forfeitures should be characterized as ‘‘punitive’’ rather than ‘‘re- medial,’’ see Note, 62 Cornell L.Rev. 768 (1977), subdivi- sion (c)(2) is intended to apply to those forfeitures which are criminal in the sense that they result from a special verdict under rule 31(e) and a judgment under rule 32(b)(2), and not to those resulting from a separate in rem proceeding. Because some confusion in this re- gard has resulted from the present wording of subdivi- sion (c)(2), United States x. Xxxx, 521 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1975), a clarifying amendment is in order. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1987 AMENDMENT Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1987 Amendment The amendments are technical. No substantive change is intended. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2000 AMENDMENT The rule is amended Guam Applicability of requirement for indictment by grand jury in certain cases, to reflect new Rule 32.2criminal prosecutions in the District Court of Guam, which now governs criminal forfeiture proceduressee section 1424 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions. GAP Report—Rule 7. The Committee initially made no changes to the published draft Virgin Islands Prosecutions in District Court of the Rule 7 amend- ment. However, because of changes to Rule 32.2(a), dis- cussed infra, the proposed language has been changed to reflect that the indictment must provide notice of an intent to seek forfeiture. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2002 AMENDMENT The language of Rule 7 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Criminal Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended Virgin Islands to be stylisticby information except such as may be required by local law to be by indictment by grand jury, see section 1615 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions. The Committee has deleted the references Cross References Arraignment, reading of indictment or information to ‘‘hard labor’’ in the ruledefendant, see rule 10. This punishment is Arrest of judgment, indictment or information not found in cur- rent federal statutescharging offense, see rule 34. The Committee added an exception for criminal con- tempt Capital offense, copy of indictment or information furnished to the requirement in Rule 7(a)(1) that a prosecu- tion for felony must be initiated by indictmentperson charged, see section 3432 of this title. This is Rule 8 TITLE 18, APPENDIX—RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Page 42 consistent with case law, e.g., Dismissal of indictment or information— By Attorney General or United States x. Xxxxxxxxxattorney, 544 F.2d 1383 (7th Cirsee rule 48. 1976)Raising defenses or objections before trial, which has sustained the use see rule 12. Election, prejudicial joinder, see rule 14. Judgment of the special procedures for instituting criminal con- tempt proceedings found in Rule 42acquittal, insufficiency of indictment or information, see rule 29. While indictment is not a required method Juvenile delinquents, proceeding against by informa- tion, see section 5032 of bringing felony criminal contempt chargesthis title. Removal proceedings, howevergenerally, it is a permissible onesee rule 40. See United States x. XxxxxxxxSetting aside or dismissing indictment, 622 F.2d 830 (5th Cirdirect appeal from district court to Supreme Court, see section 3731 of this title. 1980). No change in practice is intended. The title Trial together of Rule 7(c)(3) has been amended. The Com- mittee believed that potential confusion could arise with the use of the term ‘‘harmless errorindictments or informations, see rule 13.’’ Rule 52, which deals with the issues of harmless error and plain error, is sufficient to address the topic. Potentially, the topic of harmless error could arise with regard to any of the other rules and there is insufficient need to high- light the term in Rule 7. Rule 7(c)(3), on the other hand, focuses specifically on the effect of an error in the cita- tion of authority in the indictment. That material re- mains but without any reference to harmless error. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2009 AMENDMENT The time set in the former rule at 10 days has been revised to 14 days. See the Committee Note to Rule 45(a).

Rep. No. 91–1444 (part I), 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 81–85 (1970). Under the common law, in a criminal forfeiture pro- ceeding the defendant was apparently entitled to no- xxxx, trial, and a special jury finding on the factual is- sues surrounding the declaration of forfeiture which followed his criminal conviction. Subdivision (c)(2) pro- vides for notice. Changes in rules 31 and 32 provide for a special jury finding and for a judgment authorizing the Attorney General to seize the interest or property forfeited. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1979 AMENDMENT The amendment to rule 7(c)(2) is intended to clarify its meaning. Subdivision (c)(2) was added in 1972, and, as noted in the Advisory Committee Note thereto, was ‘‘intended to provide procedural implementation of the recently enacted criminal forfeiture provision of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Title IX, § 1963, and the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Title II, § 408(a)(2).’’ These provi- sions reestablished a limited common law criminal for- feiture, necessitating the addition of subdivision (c)(2) and corresponding changes in rules 31 and 32, for at common law the defendant in a criminal forfeiture pro- ceeding was entitled to notice, trial, and a special jury finding on the factual issues surrounding the declara- tion of forfeiture which followed his criminal convic- tion. Although there is some doubt as to what forfeitures should be characterized as ‘‘punitive’’ rather than ‘‘re- medial,’’ see Note, 62 Cornell L.Rev. 768 (1977), subdivi- sion (c)(2) is intended to apply to those forfeitures which are criminal in the sense that they result from a special verdict under rule 31(e) and a judgment under rule 32(b)(2), and not to those resulting from a separate in rem proceeding. Because some confusion in this re- gard has resulted from the present wording of subdivi- sion (c)(2), United States x. Xxxx, 521 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1975), a clarifying amendment is in order. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1987 AMENDMENT The amendments are technical. No substantive change is intended. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2000 AMENDMENT The rule is amended to reflect new Rule 32.2, which now governs criminal forfeiture procedures. GAP Report—Rule 7. The Committee initially made no changes to the published draft of the Rule 7 amend- ment. However, because of changes to Rule 32.2(a), dis- cussed infra, the proposed language has been changed to reflect that the indictment must provide notice of an intent to seek forfeiture. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2002 AMENDMENT The language of Rule 7 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Criminal Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic. Rule 8 TITLE 18, APPENDIX—RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Page 44 The Committee has deleted the references to ‘‘hard labor’’ in the rule. This punishment is not found in cur- rent federal statutes. The Committee added an exception for criminal con- tempt to the requirement in Rule 7(a)(1) that a prosecu- tion for felony must be initiated by indictment. This is Rule 8 TITLE 18, APPENDIX—RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Page 42 consistent with case law, e.g., United States x. Xxxxxxxxx, 544 F.2d 1383 (7th Cir. 1976), which has sustained the use of the special procedures for instituting criminal con- tempt proceedings found in Rule 42. While indictment is not a required method of bringing felony criminal contempt charges, however, it is a permissible one. See United States x. Xxxxxxxx, 622 F.2d 830 (5th Cir. 1980). No change in practice is intended. The title of Rule 7(c)(3) has been amended. The Com- mittee xxxxxx believed that potential confusion could arise with the use of the term ‘‘harmless error.’’ Rule 52, which deals with the issues of harmless error and plain error, is sufficient to address the topic. Potentially, the topic of harmless error could arise with regard to any of the other rules and there is insufficient need to high- light the term in Rule 7. Rule 7(c)(3), on the other hand, focuses specifically on the effect of an error in the cita- tion of authority in the indictment. That material re- mains but without any reference to harmless error. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2009 AMENDMENT The time set in the former rule at 10 days has been revised to 14 days. See the Committee Note to Rule 45(a).

Rep. No. 91–1444 (part I), 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 81–85 (1970). Under the common law, in a criminal forfeiture pro- ceeding the defendant was apparently entitled to no- xxxx, trial, and a special jury finding on the factual is- sues surrounding the declaration of forfeiture which followed his criminal conviction. Subdivision (c)(2) pro- vides for notice. Changes in rules 31 and 32 provide for a special jury finding and for a judgment authorizing the Attorney General to seize the interest or property forfeited. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1979 AMENDMENT The amendment to rule 7(c)(2) is intended to clarify its meaning. Subdivision (c)(2) was added in 1972, and, Page 43 TITLE 18, APPENDIX—RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Rule 9 as noted in the Advisory Committee Note thereto, was ‘‘intended to provide procedural implementation of the recently enacted criminal forfeiture provision of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Title IX, § 1963, and the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Title II, § 408(a)(2).’’ These provi- sions reestablished a limited common law criminal for- feiture, necessitating the addition of subdivision (c)(2) and corresponding changes in rules 31 and 32, for at common law the defendant in a criminal forfeiture pro- ceeding was entitled to notice, trial, and a special jury finding on the factual issues surrounding the declara- tion of forfeiture which followed his criminal convic- tion. Although there is some doubt as to what forfeitures should be characterized as ‘‘punitive’’ rather than ‘‘re- medial,’’ see Note, 62 Cornell L.Rev. 768 (1977), subdivi- sion (c)(2) is intended to apply to those forfeitures which are criminal in the sense that they result from a special verdict under rule 31(e) and a judgment under rule 32(b)(2), and not to those resulting from a separate in rem proceeding. Because some confusion in this re- gard has resulted from the present wording of subdivi- sion (c)(2), United States x. Xxxx, 521 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1975), a clarifying amendment is in order. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1987 AMENDMENT The amendments are technical. No substantive change is intended. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2000 AMENDMENT The rule is amended to reflect new Rule 32.2, which now governs criminal forfeiture procedures. GAP Report—Rule 7. The Committee initially made no changes to the published draft of the Rule 7 amend- ment. However, because of changes to Rule 32.2(a), dis- cussed infra, the proposed language has been changed to reflect that the indictment must provide notice of an intent to seek forfeiture. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2002 AMENDMENT The language of Rule 7 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Criminal Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic. The Committee has deleted the references to ‘‘hard labor’’ in the rule. This punishment is not found in cur- rent federal statutes. The Committee added an exception for criminal con- tempt to the requirement in Rule 7(a)(1) that a prosecu- tion for felony must be initiated by indictment. This is Rule 8 TITLE 18, APPENDIX—RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Page 42 consistent with case law, e.g., United States x. Xxxxxxxxx, 544 F.2d 1383 (7th Cir. 1976), which has sustained the use of the special procedures for instituting criminal con- tempt proceedings found in Rule 42. While indictment is not a required method of bringing felony criminal contempt charges, however, it is a permissible one. See United States x. Xxxxxxxx, 622 F.2d 830 (5th Cir. 1980). No change in practice is intended. The title of Rule 7(c)(3) has been amended. The Com- mittee believed that potential confusion could arise with the use of the term ‘‘harmless error.’’ Rule 52, which deals with the issues of harmless error and plain error, is sufficient to address the topic. Potentially, the topic of harmless error could arise with regard to any of the other rules and there is insufficient need to high- light the term in Rule 7. Rule 7(c)(3), on the other hand, focuses specifically on the effect of an error in the cita- tion of authority in the indictment. That material re- mains but without any reference to harmless error. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2009 AMENDMENT The time set in the former rule at 10 days has been revised to 14 days. See the Committee Note to Rule 45(a).

Rep. No. 91–1444 (part I), 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 81–85 (1970). Under the common law, in a criminal forfeiture pro- ceeding the defendant was apparently entitled to no- xxxx, trial, and a special jury finding on the factual is- sues surrounding the declaration of forfeiture which followed his criminal conviction. Subdivision (c)(2) pro- vides for notice. Changes in rules 31 and 32 provide for a special jury finding and for a judgment authorizing the Attorney General to seize the interest or property forfeited. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1979 AMENDMENT The amendment to rule 7(c)(2) is intended to clarify its meaning. Subdivision (c)(2) was added in 1972, and, as noted in the Advisory Committee Note thereto, was ‘‘intended to provide procedural implementation of the recently enacted criminal forfeiture provision of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Title IX, § 1963, and the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Title II, § 408(a)(2).’’ These provi- sions reestablished a limited common law criminal for- feiture, necessitating the addition of subdivision (c)(2) and corresponding changes in rules 31 and 32, for at common law the defendant in a criminal forfeiture pro- ceeding was entitled to notice, trial, and a special jury finding on the factual issues surrounding the declara- tion of forfeiture which followed his criminal convic- tion. Although there is some doubt as to what forfeitures should be characterized as ‘‘punitive’’ rather than ‘‘re- medial,’’ see Note, 62 Cornell L.Rev. 768 (1977), subdivi- sion (c)(2) is intended to apply to those forfeitures which are criminal in the sense that they result from a special verdict under rule 31(e) and a judgment under rule 32(b)(2), and not to those resulting from a separate in rem proceeding. Because some confusion in this re- gard has resulted from the present wording of subdivi- sion (c)(2), United States x. Xxxx, 521 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1975), a clarifying amendment is in order. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1987 AMENDMENT The amendments are technical. No substantive change is intended. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2000 AMENDMENT The rule is amended GUAM Applicability of requirement for indictment by grand jury in certain cases, to reflect new Rule 32.2criminal prosecutions in the District Court of Guam, which now governs criminal forfeiture proceduressee section 1424 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions. GAP Report—Rule 7. The Committee initially made no changes to the published draft VIRGIN ISLANDS Prosecutions in District Court of the Rule 7 amend- ment. However, because of changes to Rule 32.2(a), dis- cussed infra, the proposed language has been changed to reflect that the indictment must provide notice of an intent to seek forfeiture. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2002 AMENDMENT The language of Rule 7 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Criminal Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended Virgin Islands to be stylisticby information except such as may be required by local law to be by indictment by grand jury, see section 1615 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions. The Committee has deleted the references CROSS REFERENCES Arraignment, reading of indictment or information to ‘‘hard labor’’ in the ruledefendant, see rule 10. This punishment is Arrest of judgment, indictment or information not found in cur- rent federal statutescharging offense, see rule 34. The Committee added an exception for criminal con- tempt Capital offense, copy of indictment or information furnished to the requirement in Rule 7(a)(1) that a prosecu- tion for felony must be initiated by indictmentperson charged, see section 3432 of this title. This is Rule 8 TITLE 18, APPENDIX—RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Page 42 consistent with case law, e.g., Dismissal of indictment or information— By Attorney General or United States x. Xxxxxxxxxattorney, 544 F.2d 1383 (7th Cirsee rule 48. 1976)Raising defenses or objections before trial, which has sustained the use see rule 12. Election, prejudicial joinder, see rule 14. Judgment of the special procedures for instituting criminal con- tempt proceedings found in Rule 42acquittal, insufficiency of indictment or information, see rule 29. While indictment is not a required method Juvenile delinquents, proceeding against by informa- tion, see section 5032 of bringing felony criminal contempt chargesthis title. Removal proceedings, howevergenerally, it is a permissible onesee rule 40. See United States x. XxxxxxxxSetting aside or dismissing indictment, 622 F.2d 830 (5th Cirdirect appeal from district court to Supreme Court, see section 3731 of this title. 1980). No change in practice is intended. The title Trial together of Rule 7(c)(3) has been amended. The Com- mittee believed that potential confusion could arise with the use of the term ‘‘harmless errorindictments or informations, see rule 13.’’ Rule 52, which deals with the issues of harmless error and plain error, is sufficient to address the topic. Potentially, the topic of harmless error could arise with regard to any of the other rules and there is insufficient need to high- light the term in Rule 7. Rule 7(c)(3), on the other hand, focuses specifically on the effect of an error in the cita- tion of authority in the indictment. That material re- mains but without any reference to harmless error. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2009 AMENDMENT The time set in the former rule at 10 days has been revised to 14 days. See the Committee Note to Rule 45(a).

Rep. No. 91–1444 (part I), 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 81–85 (1970). Under the common law, in a criminal forfeiture pro- ceeding the defendant was apparently entitled to no- xxxx, trial, and a special jury finding on the factual is- sues surrounding the declaration of forfeiture which followed his criminal conviction. Subdivision (c)(2) pro- vides for notice. Changes in rules 31 and 32 provide for a special jury finding and for a judgment authorizing the Attorney General to seize the interest or property forfeited. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1979 AMENDMENT Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1979 Amendment The amendment to rule 7(c)(2) is intended to clarify its meaning. Subdivision (c)(2) was added in 1972, and, as noted in the Advisory Committee Note thereto, was ‘‘intended to provide procedural implementation of the recently enacted criminal forfeiture provision of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Title IX, § 1963, and the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Title II, § 408(a)(2).’’ These provi- sions reestablished a limited common law criminal for- feiture, necessitating the addition of subdivision (c)(2) and corresponding changes in rules 31 and 32, for at common law the defendant in a criminal forfeiture pro- ceeding was entitled to notice, trial, and a special jury finding on the factual issues surrounding the declara- tion of forfeiture which followed his criminal convic- tion. Although there is some doubt as to what forfeitures should be characterized as ‘‘punitive’’ rather than ‘‘re- medial,’’ see Note, 62 Cornell L.Rev. 768 (1977), subdivi- sion (c)(2) is intended to apply to those forfeitures which are criminal in the sense that they result from a special verdict under rule 31(e) and a judgment under rule 32(b)(2), and not to those resulting from a separate in rem proceeding. Because some confusion in this re- gard has resulted from the present wording of subdivi- sion (c)(2), United States x. Xxxx, 521 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1975), a clarifying amendment is in order. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1987 AMENDMENT Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1987 Amendment The amendments are technical. No substantive change is intended. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2000 AMENDMENT Committee Notes on Rules—2000 Amendment The rule is amended to reflect new Rule 32.2, which now governs criminal forfeiture procedures. GAP Report—Rule 7. The Committee initially made no changes to the published draft of the Rule 7 amend- ment. However, because of changes to Rule 32.2(a), dis- cussed infra, the proposed language has been changed to reflect that the indictment must provide notice of an intent to seek forfeiture. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2002 AMENDMENT Committee Notes on Rules—2002 Amendment The language of Rule 7 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Criminal Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic. The Committee has deleted the references to ‘‘hard labor’’ in the rule. This punishment is not found in cur- rent federal statutes. The Committee added an exception for criminal con- tempt to the requirement in Rule 7(a)(1) that a prosecu- tion for felony must be initiated by indictment. This is Rule 8 TITLE 18, APPENDIX—RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Page 42 consistent with case law, e.g., United States x. Xxxxxxxxx, 544 F.2d 1383 (7th Cir. 1976), which has sustained the use of the special procedures for instituting criminal con- tempt proceedings found in Rule 42. While indictment is not a required method of bringing felony criminal contempt charges, however, it is a permissible one. See United States x. Xxxxxxxx, 622 F.2d 830 (5th Cir. 1980). No change in practice is intended. The title of Rule 7(c)(3) has been amended. The Com- mittee believed that potential confusion could arise with the use of the term ‘‘harmless error.’’ Rule 52, which deals with the issues of harmless error and plain error, is sufficient to address the topic. Potentially, the topic of harmless error could arise with regard to any of the other rules and there is insufficient need to high- light the term in Rule 7. Rule 7(c)(3), on the other hand, focuses specifically on the effect of an error in the cita- tion of authority in the indictment. That material re- mains but without any reference to harmless error. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2009 AMENDMENT Committee Notes on Rules—2009 Amendment The time set in the former rule at 10 days has been revised to 14 days. See the Committee Note to Rule 45(a).

Rep. No. 91–1444 (part I), 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 81–85 (1970). Under the common law, in a criminal forfeiture pro- ceeding the defendant was apparently entitled to no- xxxx, trial, and a special jury finding on the factual is- sues surrounding the declaration of forfeiture which followed his criminal conviction. Subdivision (c)(2) pro- vides for notice. Changes in rules 31 and 32 provide for a special jury finding and for a judgment authorizing the Attorney General to seize the interest or property forfeited. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1979 AMENDMENT Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1979 Amendment The amendment to rule 7(c)(2) is intended to clarify its meaning. Subdivision (c)(2) was added in 1972, and, Page 43 TITLE 18, APPENDIX—RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Rule 9 as noted in the Advisory Committee Note thereto, was ‘‘intended to provide procedural implementation of the recently enacted criminal forfeiture provision of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Title IX, § 1963, and the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Title II, § 408(a)(2).’’ These provi- sions reestablished a limited common law criminal for- feiture, necessitating the addition of subdivision (c)(2) and corresponding changes in rules 31 and 32, for at common law the defendant in a criminal forfeiture pro- ceeding was entitled to notice, trial, and a special jury finding on the factual issues surrounding the declara- tion of forfeiture which followed his criminal convic- tion. Although there is some doubt as to what forfeitures should be characterized as ‘‘punitive’’ rather than ‘‘re- medial,’’ see Note, 62 Cornell L.Rev. 768 (1977), subdivi- sion (c)(2) is intended to apply to those forfeitures which are criminal in the sense that they result from a special verdict under rule 31(e) and a judgment under rule 32(b)(2), and not to those resulting from a separate in rem proceeding. Because some confusion in this re- gard has resulted from the present wording of subdivi- sion (c)(2), United States x. Xxxx, 521 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1975), a clarifying amendment is in order. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1987 AMENDMENT Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1987 Amendment The amendments are technical. No substantive change is intended. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2000 AMENDMENT Committee Notes on Rules—2000 Amendment The rule is amended to reflect new Rule 32.2, which now governs criminal forfeiture procedures. GAP Report—Rule 7. The Committee initially made no changes to the published draft of the Rule 7 amend- ment. However, because of changes to Rule 32.2(a), dis- cussed infra, the proposed language has been changed to reflect that the indictment must provide notice of an intent to seek forfeiture. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2002 AMENDMENT Committee Notes on Rules—2002 Amendment The language of Rule 7 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Criminal Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic. The Committee has deleted the references to ‘‘hard labor’’ in the rule. This punishment is not found in cur- rent federal statutes. The Committee added an exception for criminal con- tempt to the requirement in Rule 7(a)(1) that a prosecu- tion for felony must be initiated by indictment. This is Rule 8 TITLE 18, APPENDIX—RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Page 42 consistent with case law, e.g., United States x. Xxxxxxxxx, 544 F.2d 1383 (7th Cir. 1976), which has sustained the use of the special procedures for instituting criminal con- tempt proceedings found in Rule 42. While indictment is not a required method of bringing felony criminal contempt charges, however, it is a permissible one. See United States x. Xxxxxxxx, 622 F.2d 830 (5th Cir. 1980). No change in practice is intended. The title of Rule 7(c)(3) has been amended. The Com- mittee believed that potential confusion could arise with the use of the term ‘‘harmless error.’’ Rule 52, which deals with the issues of harmless error and plain error, is sufficient to address the topic. Potentially, the topic of harmless error could arise with regard to any of the other rules and there is insufficient need to high- light the term in Rule 7. Rule 7(c)(3), on the other hand, focuses specifically on the effect of an error in the cita- tion of authority in the indictment. That material re- mains but without any reference to harmless error. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2009 AMENDMENT Committee Notes on Rules—2009 Amendment The time set in the former rule at 10 days has been revised to 14 days. See the Committee Note to Rule 45(a).