United States v. Autoland Inc ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-30477
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
FRANK C. FEEBACK,
Defendant-Appellant.
___________________
No. 00-30478
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
AUTOLAND, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 98-CR-30039-4
--------------------
December 13, 2000
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Autoland, Inc., a used-car business, and its owner, Frank C.
Feeback, entered conditional guilty pleas to a charge of mail
fraud. The defendants reserved the right to appeal the order
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
Nos. 00-30477 & 00-30478
-2-
denying the motion to dismiss the indictment. We review de novo
whether the indictment alleged the essential elements of the
crime charged, fairly informed the defendants of the charges, and
eliminated the risk of future prosecutions for the same offense.
United States v. Alford, 999 F.2d 818, 823 (5th Cir. 1993).
The indictment alleged that Feeback and Autoland forged
signatures on titles and affidavits for the purpose of
misrepresenting the repossessions and voluntary returns as
rescinded sales in order to secure sales-tax refunds. The
defendants argue that Louisiana law provides for sales-tax
refunds for voluntary surrender or repossession in addition to
recission of sale. Even if Louisiana law allowed for the refund
of sales tax for repossessed or voluntarily returned vehicles,
seeking the refund by misrepresenting the transactions as
rescinded sales is an effort to obtain money by means of false
representations which is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 1341. This
indictment is sufficient. See United States v. Duncan, 919 F.2d
981, 990 (5th Cir. 1990); Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 25
(1999).
Feeback challenges his sentence arguing that the district
court was clearly erroneous in finding that he was an organizer
or leader of the criminal enterprise involving five or more
people under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). This finding is supported by
the information contained in the Presentence report (PSR).
Feeback has not shown this information to be inaccurate or
unreliable. See United States v. Lage, 183 F.3d 374, 383-84 (5th
Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 1180 (2000).
Nos. 00-30477 & 00-30478
-3-
AFFIRMED.