United States v. Sofjan Lamid
663 F. App'x 319
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Dr. Sofjan Lamid was convicted of health-care fraud and subject to a $2,525,132 forfeiture money judgment; the government sought substitute assets and obtained an order forfeiting several real properties.
- The government published notice on forfeiture.gov and mailed certified notice to the address listed in the Presentence Investigation Report for Dr. and Burlini (Burlini) Lamid.
- Rudy Lamid filed a verified third-party claim on behalf of his mother Burlini, stating he acted under a power of attorney; the submitted power of attorney was executed by Dr. Lamid and did not expressly grant authority to act for Burlini.
- The government moved to dismiss, arguing Rudy lacked authority to sign under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(3) and that Dr. Lamid could not vest authority over a third party’s affairs; the district court dismissed and entered a final forfeiture.
- Rudy later sought leave to amend (to file as representative of Burlini’s estate); the district court denied amendment as futile because § 853(n)(2)’s 30‑day petition deadline had passed.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed: notice was adequate, Rudy lacked authority to file for Burlini, amendment would be untimely, and a third‑party cannot relitigate the underlying forfeiture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of notice / Due process | Rudy: constructive/public-record notice (interdiction) meant certified-mail was insufficient | Government: published notice plus certified mail to listed residence was reasonably calculated to give notice | Court: Notice was adequate (publication + certified mail were reasonably calculated); gov’t not required to search records for interdiction |
| Authority to sign under § 853(n)(3) | Rudy: as undercurator’s family and via power of attorney from Dr. Lamid (curator), he had authority to sign for Burlini | Government: POA executed by Dr. Lamid cannot convey authority to act for a third party; Louisiana law forbids delegation of a curator’s duties to a third party | Court: Rudy lacked authority; strict § 853(n)(3) signature requirement not met; dismissal proper |
| Leave to amend / Timeliness under § 853(n)(2) | Rudy: any defect could be cured by filing an amended claim as representative of Burlini’s estate | Government: § 853(n)(2) 30‑day deadline is mandatory; amendment would be untimely and futile | Court: Denial of leave to amend affirmed — amendment would violate mandatory 30‑day deadline absent excusable neglect (none shown) |
| Innocent‑spouse / community property challenge | Rudy: community property interest cannot be forfeited as substitute property under § 853(p) | Government: defendant’s interest includes his community share; ancillary proceeding is the proper mechanism for co‑owners to assert rights | Court: Rejected Rudy’s challenge as improper third‑party relitigation; ancillary proceeding is the vehicle to adjudicate third‑party interests |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Alvarez, 710 F.3d 565 (5th Cir. 2013) (publication plus practicable direct notice satisfies due process in forfeiture proceedings)
- Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft, 722 F.3d 677 (5th Cir. 2013) (third‑party § 853(n) petition cannot relitigate forfeitability; limited to adjudicating third‑party interest)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (notice must be reasonably calculated to inform interested parties)
- Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161 (U.S. 2002) (No requirement of ‘‘heroic efforts’’ to ensure actual notice)