to crimes with even greater precision than criminal legislation. See Baja-kajian, 524 U.S. at-, 118 S.Ct. at 2044 (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (noting that the purpose of the sentencing guidelines “is to select punishments with precise proportion”). Therefore, although we retain a duty under the Eighth Amendment independently to examine fines for excessiveness, a defendant would need to present a very compelling argument to persuade us to substitute our judgment for that of the United States Sentencing Commission. Thus, in a forfeiture action, if the value of the property forfeited is within or near the permissible range of fines under the sentencing guidelines, the forfeiture almost certainly is not excessive. See United States v. 427 & 429 Hall St, 74 F.3d 1165, 1172-73 (11th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); see also Bajakajian, 524 U.S. at-, 118 S.Ct.
holding that forfeiture of property valued at 150000 was excessive where the maximum statutory fine was 20000 holding that forfeiture of property valued at 65000 was not excessive where the maximum fine under the sentencing guidelines was 40000 holding statutory maximum for prior conviction is the potential maximum sentence defined by the applicable state criminal statute not the maximum sentence which could have been imposed against the particular defendant  according to the states sentencing guidelines holding that forfeiture of 357144 in currency was excessive where the maximum statutory fine was 250000 and the maximum fine under the sentencing guidelines was 5000 holding defendant sentenced to term equal to maximum guidelines sentence under improperly calculated sentencing guidelines scoresheet was not entitled to be resentenced because defendant was habitualized such that sentencing guidelines score sheet was irrelevant and the sentence imposed was not illegal