ustomer.  Michael acted toward these four, in ordinary business terms, as a wholesaler acts toward retailers.  And just as a wholesaler who sells at prices he or she sets, on credit or for cash, does not "organize, supervise, or manage" retailers, Michael did not organize, supervise, or manage these four.  Thus, Michael was shown to have controlled or organized only three people, and as three are too few to establish guilt of a continuing criminal violation under the CCE statute, we reverse Michael's conviction and sentence under this count.


11
Furthermore, we must reverse and remand the district court's order of forfeiture of several parcels of land and vehicles under Count 14 of the indictment because the district court did not perform a proportionality or "instrumentality" review, despite Michael's request at sentencing that such a review be performed.  The Supreme Court in Austin v. United States, 113 S.Ct. 2801, 2812 (1993), and Alexander v. United States, 113 S.Ct. 2766, 2775-76 (1993), announced that a forfeiture which is not proportional to the crime of conviction violates the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Our Circuit has held that this rule applies to forfeitures of property which constitutes the proceeds of crime, as well as forfeitures of property which has been used to facilitate a crime.  United States v. Borromeo, 1 F.3d 219, 221 (4th Cir.1993).2  In light of the complexity of the present case, we find it would be most appropriate for the district court, with its close familiarity with the facts, to conduct such a review here.  Compare Borromeo, 1 F.3d at 221 (remanding for proportionality review), with United States v. Chandler, 36 F.3d 358, 366 (4th Cir.1994) (where the court of appeals itself performed a review), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Dec. 27, 1994).  Consequently, we vacate and remand so that such a review may be performed by the district court before entry of a constitutional forfeiture order.


12
Otherwise, there is a plethora of