 Both Luis and federal prosecutors conceded that the court's order restrained assets that were entirely unrelated to the alleged criminal activity and that the order prevented Luis from hiring the attorney of her choice to defend her at her criminal trial.In its ruling, the district court also recognized that the order would prevent Luis from hiring the attorney of her choice, but the court stated that "there is no Sixth Amendment right to use untainted, substitute assets to hire counsel", and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling in a "per curiam" decision.Citing "Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States" and "United States v. Monsanto", the Eleventh Circuit held that the Supreme Court of the United States's criminal forfeiture jurisprudence foreclosed constitutional challenges to the seizure of untainted assets.