---
canonical_url: "https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q1a613e55f7531a4c9fc1"
batch_url: "https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000078/pages/3"
content_type: discussion_message
speaker: "reb***"
date: "2026-02-16T00:08:28.160Z"
---

# reb*** 发言 (2026-02-16)

围绕郭文贵案的社区讨论与观点交锋。发言仅代表讨论者观点，不等同于法院认定。

批次：[查看所在归档批次](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000078/pages/3)
时间：2026-02-16T00:08:28.160Z

## 发言正文

> 五、没有找到"必须等sentencing后才能mandamus forfeiture"的支持
> Searched extensively for:
> Cases where circuits held mandamus unavailable before sentencing for § 853(n) issues
> Found: NONE
> Rules requiring waiting until sentencing
> Found: NONE
> Circuit splits on timing of forfeiture mandamus
> Found: No evidence of such split
> 实际找到的:
> Seventh Circuit in Kaufmann, 985 F.2d 884:
> Involved forfeiture issues
> No indication that court waited until sentencing
> Court reviewed on regular appeal timeline
> Federal Rules Commentary:
> Explicitly state ancillary proceedings must be before sentencing
> Contemplate that third-party issues are resolved before FOF
> Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 32.2:
> "Congress apparently assumed that the proceedings under the new provisions would involve simple questions of ownership that could, in the ordinary case, be resolved in 30 days."
> 30 days ≠ waiting until sentencing!