Seems a little late to start bee-atching
Particularly given that he agreed in his plea bargain (para 13) to waive any challenges to a forfeiture order "including that the forfeiture constitutes an excessive fine or punishment."
Para 11 defines the property in question to be anything connected with the crime he owns or has or had at some point control over, directly or indirectly; or anything "traceable to, derived from, fungible with or a substitute for" such property.
That seems to clearly make him liable for the the whole $4.8M, to the extent he ever had direct or indirect control over the money, to be satisfied by forfeiture of whatever he owns, and with no right to "bee-atch" about it.
If he didn't understand it that way, he has only himself to blame for being too dumb to get a proper attorney (rather than the ridiculous Amador at the time of his plea bargain, and afterwards this defender of drunk drivers).