September 13, 2021 opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • U.S. v. The M/Y Galactica Star, 20-20471, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Davis, J. (Davis, Duncan, Oldham), civil forfeiture, Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
    • Affirming dismissal of claim to forfeited yacht by sole shareholder of corporate owner of yacht and other assets, for lack of standing; and dismissing appeal of judgment creditor of Nigeria a verified claim to the yacht, on the basis of Nigeria’s immunity from attachment and execution under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
    • The civil forfeiture in this case arises from an extensive international bribery scheme whereby intermediaries promised the award of lucrative oil and energy contracts in Nigeria and provided bribes to Nigeria’s Minister of Petroleum Resources. The U.S. Government seized a yacht owned by an entity controlled by the intermediary, as well as other real estate assets in the U.S. Mere days before the forfeiture proceedings were commenced, LightRay purchased 100 percent of the common stock in the entity that owned the yacht and other real estate assets, and then filed a verified claim in the forfeiture proceeding. It later dropped its claim to the yacht, but maintained its claim on the other real estate assets. Nigeria also made a verified claim in the forfeiture proceeding, and Enron Nigeria filed a motion invoking Texas law to seek recovery out of any funds awarded to Nigeria to satisfy an $11 million judgment it held against Nigeria. LightRay then reentered the fray after the yacht was sold and argued that its earlier stipulation to withdraw any claim to the yacht proceeds was made under duress.
    • The district court granted the U.S. Government’s consent motion of forfeiture; held that the Government had the sole claim to the yacht; that Nigeria had no lawful claim to it and that Enron Nigeria had nothing against which to recover its debt; that LightRay’ withdrawal of its claim to the yacht had been valid and that it lacked standing to assert a claim against the yacht or the other assets.
    • The Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting LightRay’s duress argument, because it found that all of the circumstances supported that LightRay had entered into the stipulated withdrawal willingly.
    • As to LightRay’s claim on the other assets, the Court held that LightRay’s sole-shareholder status satisfied constitutional standing, but that LightRay lacked prudential standing. Noting the importance of the distinction between a corporation and its shareholders, the Court held, “LightRay’s interest in Earnshaw’s stock does not establish LightRay’s interest in Earnshaw’s corporate assets. Accordingly, we conclude that LightRay has no cause of action under the civil forfeiture statute and that the district court did not err in dismissing LightRay from this matter.”
    • The Court then held that Nigeria remained shielded from attachment of its property interests by the FSIA, that its encouragement of the U.S. to sell the yacht resulted in commercial activity by the U.S., not by Nigeria.

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Moore, 20-11194, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Willett), prisoner suit
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from district court’s dismissal of prisoner’s suit and imposition of sanctions.
  • U.S. v. Garza-Garcia, 20-40813, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Higginson, Duncan), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. Bank National Association v. Blizzard, 20-50051, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Willett), foreclosure
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from summary judgment in favor of mortgage issuer and dismissal of counter-claims arising from foreclosure.
  • Calhoun v. Collier, 20-50663, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), prisoner suit
    • Vacating dismissal of prisoner plaintiff’s suit against prison officials arising from denial of access to funds in inmate trust account, and remanding for further proceedings.
  • Singh v. Garland, 20-60273, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Higginson, Duncan), immigration
    • Denying in part and dismissing in part Indian citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT.
  • U.S. v. Jones, 21-10065, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Vazquez-Medrano, 21-10250, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), criminal, sentencing
    • Granting summary affirmance of 36-month sentence and conviction for illegal reentry.