Filed: Feb. 13, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-10483 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS 1700 DUNCANVILLE ROAD, DUNCANVILLE, TEXAS, INCLUDING ALL BUILDINGS, APPURTENANCES, AND IMPROVEMENTS THEREON; ET. AL., Defendants, SAM SBINI; LISA SCHRANK Claimants-Appellants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (3:99-CV-0996-T) February 12, 2001 Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-10483 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS 1700 DUNCANVILLE ROAD, DUNCANVILLE, TEXAS, INCLUDING ALL BUILDINGS, APPURTENANCES, AND IMPROVEMENTS THEREON; ET. AL., Defendants, SAM SBINI; LISA SCHRANK Claimants-Appellants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (3:99-CV-0996-T) February 12, 2001 Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. P..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-10483
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS 1700 DUNCANVILLE ROAD, DUNCANVILLE, TEXAS,
INCLUDING ALL BUILDINGS, APPURTENANCES, AND IMPROVEMENTS THEREON;
ET. AL.,
Defendants,
SAM SBINI; LISA SCHRANK
Claimants-Appellants.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(3:99-CV-0996-T)
February 12, 2001
Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In this civil forfeiture action, Claimants-Appellants Sam
Sbini and Lisa Schrank appeal the district court’s grant of the
*
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
1
motion of Plaintiff-Appellee (the government) for summary judgment.
Claimants-Appellants contend that (1) the property was not
“involved in” a money laundering transaction (in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1957) as required by the applicable forfeiture statute (18
U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A)), (2) the forfeiture constitutes an excessive
fine under the Eighth Amendment, and (3) the burden of proof
applied by the district court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981 violates
the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against the loss of property
without due process of law. Having carefully and fully considered
the record and the arguments and briefs of counsel as well as the
opinion of the district court, we are satisfied that summary
judgment was properly granted, and we affirm the judgment of the
district court for essentially the same reasons set forth in its
comprehensive opinion.
AFFIRMED.
2