United States v. Eustolio Cantu , 542 F. App'x 380 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 13-40294       Document: 00512413405         Page: 1     Date Filed: 10/18/2013
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    October 18, 2013
    No. 13-40294
    Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    EUSTOLIO CANTU,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 6:12-CR-7-2
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Eustolio Cantu appeals from the final order of criminal forfeiture ordering
    the forfeiture of 288 acres in Brooks County, Texas, following his guilty plea to
    conspiracy to transport illegal aliens within the United States. See 8 U.S.C.
    § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (iii), (v)(I), and (a)(1)(B)(i); 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(6). To the
    extent that Cantu contends that there is no proof in the record that the property
    was subject to forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853 and that neither the
    indictment nor the plea agreement provides for the forfeiture, the superseding
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
    Case: 13-40294     Document: 00512413405      Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/18/2013
    No. 13-40294
    indictment contained a notice of forfeiture that specified § 982(a)(6) as the basis
    for the forfeiture—not § 853. Cantu’s conclusory allegations of error, which lack
    citation to the record or appropriate legal authority, do not demonstrate that the
    district court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous or that the district court
    erred in ordering the forfeiture. See United States v. Juluke, 
    426 F.3d 323
    , 326
    (5th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Gasanova, 
    332 F.3d 297
    , 300-01 (5th
    Cir. 2003); cf. United States v. Ballard, 
    779 F.2d 287
    , 295 (5th Cir. 1986)
    (determining that a party who offered only a bare listing of alleged errors
    without referencing supporting authorities or the record abandoned those claims
    on appeal).
    Moreover, after a forfeiture hearing in which the government presented
    physical and testimonial evidence, the district court found that “the
    defendant . . . intended to use the property to facilitate the commission of the
    offense of which he has been found guilty.” The district court’s conclusion was
    founded upon evidence that over several months, Cantu was paid $100 per
    illegal alien for the use of the Brooks County Property which, as argued by the
    government in response to Cantu’s appeal, “allowed the organization to
    circumvent the United States Border Patrol checkpoint, conceal the illegal aliens
    in an area covering hundreds of acres to avoid detection by law enforcement, and
    harbor the illegal aliens until drivers could pick them up for transport north of
    the checkpoint. The use of the Brooks County Property enabled the alien
    smuggling organization to conceal their . . . activities and obstruct and hinder
    law enforcement . . .”     The district court’s finding that the government
    established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Brooks County property
    was used to facilitate the crime of conspiracy to transport illegal aliens, was not
    clearly erroneous.
    Accordingly, the district court’s final order of forfeiture is AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-40294

Citation Numbers: 542 F. App'x 380

Judges: Higginbotham, Dennis, Graves

Filed Date: 10/18/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024