Taking property after conviction

1. Whether the Constitution permits continued enforcement of a criminal forfeiture rendered substantively unlawful by Honeycutt v. United States — which the government concedes applies retroactively on collateral review — where no statutory post-conviction vehicle exists to effectuate that retroactivity because the forfeiture is non-custodial and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 does not reach it, leaving the defendant subject to punishment the law no longer authorizes and without any procedural mechanism to obtain relief. 2. Whether a court of appeals may deny audita querela relief from a forfeiture rendered substantively unlawful by Honeycutt v. United States based on the factual predicate that forfeiture was never challenged on direct appeal — a predicate the record shows is false — without first adjudicating the petitioner’s unrebutted allegation of fraud on the court directed at that predicate. See Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944). 3. Whether summary affirmance is permissible where the prosecutor was formally disqualified and compelled to testify as a necessary fact witness regarding his own conflict of interest, yet continued to control the post-conviction proceedings — including the forfeiture briefing — that the Constitution requires be conducted by a disinterested prosecutor. See Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787 (1987). 4. Whether a court of appeals may summarily affirm a judgment where preserved claims of structural error — specifically, judicial bias — remain entirely undefended by the government on the merits and have never been adjudicated on the merits by any court. See In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955).