appropriate punishment for an offense belong in the first instance to the legislature”). Consequently, if the value of forfeited property is within the range of fines prescribed by Congress, a strong presumption arises that the forfeiture is constitutional. The second body that has proportioned crimes to fines is the United States Sentencing Commission. The Commission is a judicial agency that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(a) (1994), is authorized to promulgate guidelines for use by federal courts in sentencing persons convicted of a crime. Those guidelines are the product of extensive research, thought, input from commentators, and experience. See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, Ch.l, Pt.A (Nov. 1, 1990). They are designed to proportion punishmen 2038 & n. 14 (<HOLDING>). In this case, Howerin was convicted on the
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 property valued at 150000 was excessive where the maximum statutory fine was 20000 holding in a case where the maximum time of imprisonment was extended because an indigent defendant was unable to pay a fine and court costs that a state may not constitutionally imprison beyond the maximum duration fixed by statute a defendant who is financially unable to pay a fine 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