*1 run on June the date the Su
preme Apprendi Court handed down e expired. has therefore Lopez, Se 433; Vial,
F.3d at but see In re (4th Cir.1997)(en banc)(in- 1197 n. 9
terpreting recognition the initial 2255(3) §
right referred to in to be the
date the Court rules on the collateral
availability rule). I therefore myself unpersuaded
find the Government’s
sky-is-falling retroactivity argument. foregoing reasons,
For the I would hold the district court in denying erred
futile Clark’s motion to amend initial his petition. I therefore reverse would remand to the district court for fur- proceedings
ther opin- consistent with this
ion rather than majority’s remand question
without direction on the of retro-
activity. SOLICITORS,
HARPER MACLEOD
Plaintiff-Appellant, KEATY, doing
KEATY & business as Firm, Law Defendant-
Appellee.
No. 00-30906.
United States Appeals, Court of
Fifth Circuit.
July *2 KING, Judge, Before Chief * BENAVIDES,
ALDISERT Circuit Judges.
BENAVIDES, Judge: Circuit Appellees Keaty, Keaty Thomas Robert Keaty Keaty, & Law d/b/a (the Firm, Defendants) suffered a default judgment in the Southern District of Texas Appellant favor of Harper Macleod So- (Harper), licitors a Scottish law firm. Harper sought register When the de- fault the Eastern District of pursuant Louisiana to 28 U.S.C. challenged validity the Defendants its al- leging process. deficient service of The Louisiana district court sustained that and, 60(b)(4), challenge using Rule voided judgment. Harper the default ap- now peals, arguing that the Texas district court’s findings should be af- preclusive forded effect accordance with law, Texas service on the Defen- sufficiently complied dants with the Texas long arm to support statute the default by the issued Texas district concluding court. After that district authority courts have to entertain motions challenging validity of another district 60(b)(4), judgment using court’s we confirm propriety the district court’s preclusion reliance on federal rules of issue to determine that the Texas district jurisdictional findings preclude did not arguing jurisdic- Defendants from their Lance (argued), James Arnold Baldwin Further, agree tional claims. we with the LA, Orleans, Haspel, New Elizabeth Louisiana district court’s conclusion that Kamin, Woodard, Bonvillain Hall & service on the Defendants was defective Primm, Houston, TX, Plaintiff-Appel- AF- Accordingly, under Texas law. we lant. FIRM the of the Louisiana dis- (argued), Shawn David Sentilles Francis voiding trict court the default Lobrano, Joseph Lobrano, Lobrano & the Texas district court. Chasse, LA, Belle for Defendant-Appellee.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND August Harper On filed suit against the Defendants the Southern * Judge sitting designation. Circuit, Circuit of the Third (the Signature of “bearing Addressee’s ceived Texas, Division Galveston
District Court). fraud and alleged Agent.” Harper Texas its referral relation of contract
breach in the appear Defendants did plaintiffs to injury personal of two January On Texas Court. jurisdiction was Federal Defendants. an Amended Default entered Texas Court citizenship. diversity of founded on Harper. The order in favor of Judgment Defen- on the attempted service Harper jointly several- judged the Defendants long- with the in accordance dants $1,108,734.30 in ly hable forwarding copies three arm statute pre-judg- inclusive of damages, liquidated summonses, well as three complaint, as *4 The attorneys’ and fees. ment interest (the Secretary of State Secre- to Texas the Texas Court order recited also Secretary Harper provided tary). and jurisdiction over the Defendants had “home home office” following or with the “properly had the Defendants been the Defendants: addresses Complaint.” served with Summons Keaty Keaty & To Defendant d/b/a 2, 1999, registered Harper On March home or home office: Keaty Firm’s The Dis- judgment in the Eastern the default Road, Doucet Suite 104 Court) (the Louisiana trict of Louisiana Lafayette, LA 1963,1 § com- then to 28 U.S.C. pursuant Keaty’s M. Robert 2. To Defendant activities, specifically menced collection or home office: home issuance of writs of execution seeking the Keaty Keaty c/o re- garnishments. Defendants and various Trade Center 1140World by chal- collection sponded to the activities Canal Street Two validity of the Texas Court lenging the Orleans, LA 70130 New judgment.2 Keaty Thomas Jr.’s 3. To Defendant S. or home office: home 4, 1999, Harper unop- filed an On June 60(a) Keaty & in Texas motion posed Rule c/o Trade Center judg- 1140World seeking to amend the default Canal Street sup- Two in express include ment to Orleans, LA 70130 personal New court’s exercise port of that The jurisdiction over the Defendants. 1, 1998, received September Harper On an Order subsequently signed Texas Court attesting Secretary from the certifications (1) “properly pro- specifying and com- copies of the summons that two Secretary with Texas of State vided the mail plaint had delivered certified been of each of the the addresses Defendants’ provided at the address defendant each in accor- home office’ address” ‘home or Secretary further that defendant. (2) statute; arm dance receipts had been re- with that return certified may registered be enforced where provides: 1. Section 1963 like manner.... recovery A in an action for any (Supp.2000). money property or entered U.S.C. registered by filing court ... be district challenge styled as an Defendants their 2. The copy of the certified Rule 13 Counterclaim has Under district ... when "Answer other Vacate appeal expiration Asserting Independent or Action to become final an regis- judgment so appeal.... A Judgment time for For Lack Personal Default 'Void' judg- as a tered shall have the same effect Jurisdiction.” court the district of the district ment Secretary the record reflected that Discussion actually process forwarded to each of the Federal courts generally disfa Defendants; the record reflected that vor default judgments, preferring to re actually each Defendant had pro- received disputes according solve to their merits. cess; and proper- Court had Lindsey v. Corp., Prive 161 F.3d ly personal jurisdiction exercised over the (5th Cir.1998); Elves, Seven Inc. v. Eske Defendants. nazi, Cir.1981) (not Harper then summary judg- moved for 60(b) ing that Rule should “applied be ment in the Louisiana Court liberally default.”) most judgments validity of the Texas judg- Court’s default This circuit held that has a district court ment. The district granted the mo- must set aside a default as void unopposed tion as on November if it determines that it personal lacked having granted the Defendants several ex- jurisdiction over the defendant because of oppose. tensions to The Defendants filed See, defective service of process. e.g., a “motion for reconsideration” on Decem- Bludworth Bond Shipyard, Inc. v. M/V ber support of which *5 Wind, (5th 646, Caribbean 841 F.2d 649 offered evidence suggesting that neither Cir.1988). case, In presented this we are Law Firm nor Keaty Keaty & with defendants that suffered a default legal entity existed as a at the time judgment in court, one federal district attempted Moreover, service. the Defen- challenged judgment then that as void for maintained dants that none of the address- jurisdiction lack of in the district court of provided to Secretary by Harper es registration. It is well-established that . accurately reflected the “home or home appear defendants need not in a federal office” address of of the Defendants. court without authority person exercise Because Texas requires law strict compli- al over them to juris raise a statute, ance with the Texas arm dictional defect. “always Defendants are Defendants asserted that service was de- ignore judicial free to proceedings, fective and judgment the Texas void. judgment, risk a default then challenge Treating Defendants’ motion as a Rule judgment on grounds 60(b)(4) request for judgment relief from proceeding.” a collateral Corp. Ins. grounds service, on of insufficient the Lou- Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites (1) isiana Court the Texas determined Guinee, 694, 706, de 456 U.S. 102 S.Ct. jurisdictional findings Court’s pre- did not (1982); 72 L.Ed.2d Broad clude the collaterally Defendants from Music, cast Inc. v. Enterprises, M.T.S. raising jurisdictional defects under federal Inc., (5th Cir.1987). 278, 811 F.2d (2) judicata principles, res service to Harper, beneficiary as the the Defendants was the default defective under Texas judgment, challenged As a has not consequence, ability law. the Louisiana registering a court grant court declared that relief from judgment “the default by judgment entered another district using United States District court’s Court, 60(b)(4) Texas, Rule Southern District of when the Galves- court did Harper’s properly jurisdiction. ton Division is void.” subsequent In- exercise stead, motion for relief from judgment pursuant Harper alternatively argues that 60(b)(1) (b)(6) to Rule or registering was denied and a court apply should the rele- 13, final was entered on July preclusion state on vant law issue to deter- appeal 2000. This followed. mine the effect of court, a court’s scope registering sitting rendering district court by a made judgments amend ren the Defen- to alter or power service on diversity, or 60(b) sufficiently through because it court Rule proper dered another was dants long arm statute. complied with See is uncertain. WRIght, Kane, Miller 2d PROCEDURE: Civil FEDERAL PRACTICE AND a dis generally review Though we (1995).3 under Typically, § 2787 relief 60(b) solely for ruling Rule trict court’s 60(b) in the court sought is Rule Bond, discretion, Bludworth abuse id. judgment at issue. See rendered the 60(b)(4) 649, leave “Rule motions F.2d at circuit, § At one the Sev least of the district for consideration margin no 60(b) enth, mo suggested that Rule has judgments them as the discretion court’s to the presented must court tions be legal nulli either are definition selves question. See rendered Fenner, 136 F.3d Carter v. ties not.” or Trustees, Sheet Metal Workers’ Board Cir.1998). (5th As a conse Erectors, Inc., v. Elite Nat’l Fund Pension raised of the issues quence, our review Cir.2000).4 1031, 1034 Inter effectively novo. See is de appeal this the court preting U.S.C. Inc., Industries, Export Group Reef registering reasoned that a Elite Erectors (9th Cir.1995) (“We review F.3d authority over the no has ruling upon a district de .... novo a registered. Consequently, Id. being 60(b)(4) judg aside a motion set not, accord registering district court could void, question of the because the ment as Circuit, one.”). tell render ing to Seventh legal validity of.a judgment. Id. ing court not to enforce *6 May Rely on Registering I. Court A expressed concern that var also court 60(b)(1) to Entertain Rule Jurisdictional Rule registering might courts ious resolve Validity a Challenges to the 60(b) Default modify of annul same to or the motions By Another District Judgment Issued differently. majority Id. The judgment Court circuits, however, suggested has held or registering may rely courts on Rule
Although both the Louisiana Court
60(b)(4)
60(b)(4)
judgment
if the
void a default
to
parties assume that Rule
and the
jurisdiction
without
a
court was
registering
rendering
to void
empowers a
court
See F.D.I.C. v. Aaro-
district
over the defendant.
judgment
by
rendered
another
Erectors,
recognized
the
Circuit
expressly
4. Prior
Elite
Seventh
Court has never
to
3. This
authority
registering
registering
void a
suggested
of a
court to
a
could
the
had
court
court.
60(b)(4)
rendered in another district
judgment
judgment
void the
use
Rule
by
upon
the
Circuit cases relied
The Fifth
court. See In re Joint Eastern
another
support
district court
its review
Asbestos,
755,
22
762 n.
Dist.
F.3d
Southern
jurisdiction,
as those
Court's
as well
(7th Cir.1994) (“[T]he authority
reg
15
by
parties, involved
a render-
cited
either
to entertain a
under
court
motion
istration
60(b)(4)
considering
ing
a Rule
motion
court
well-established.”);
60(b)(4) appears
to be
Rule
Bludworth,
judgment,
841
its own
648-49;
see
to void
Livaditis,
203,
611 F.2d
Fuhrman
205
Music, 811 F.2d at
at
Broadcast
F.2d
(7th Cir.1979) (refusing to
"conclude
281;
Properties v. Southwest
Recreational
registering
presented
court
with a motion
a
Serv.,
311,
Cir.1986),
(5th
Mortg.
F.2d
314
804
lack of
from
based on
relief
full faith
or district court’s refusal
afford
a
every
personal jurisdiction must in
instance
a state court
credit to
default
originally
defer to the court which
issued
the state court had no
because
judgment....”).
Corp. v. Small
the defendant. See A.L.T.
over
Administration,
(5th
Business
In
actions
Supreme
principally on the
Court’s
relies
underlying
judg
default
the
produced
that
jurisprudence which
full faith and credit
case,
of the forum
in this
the law
ment
give
must
that “a federal court
provides
limits
state, subject to the constitutional
preclusive
judgment the same
a state-court
Clause, con
by the Due Process
imposed
that
given
as would be
effect
court to exer
ability of a district
trols the
of the State
which the
under the law
nonresident
jurisdiction over
personal
cise
Migra
rendered.”
v. War
judgment was
v.
Corp.
Southmark
defendants. See
Life
Educ., 465 U.S.
City Sch. Dist. Bd.
ren
Inc.,
Investors,
763,
n. 15
F.2d
892, 79
(1984);
75, 81, 104
L.Ed.2d 56
S.Ct.
Cir.1988);
F.2d
Spademan,
Stuart
90, 96, 101
McCurry, 449 U.S.
Allen v.
(5th Cir.1985). Thus,
1185, 1189
law
415,
66 L.Ed.2d
S.Ct.
the foundation for the Defen
provides
may look to
(“[T]hough the federal courts
process
argument
service
dants’
support
policies
common law or to the
defective such
proceeding
was
judicata
estoppel
and collateral
ing res
properly
assessing
preclusive
did not
effect of decisions
the Texas Court
courts, Congress
spe
has
of other federal
it
jurisdiction over them when
exercise
cifically
give
all federal courts to
required
appeal,
judgment. On
rendered default
judgments
preclusive effect to state-court
should also
Harper argues that Texas law
from
the courts of
State
whenever
ef
preclusive
to determine the
applied
be
emerged would do
judgments
which
jurisdictional findings contained
fect
”).
rule,
circuit
Applying this
this
so....
original and amended
Texas Court’s
a federal court is asked
has held
when
Because Texas main
judgments.
default
judgment,
rendering
to enforce a state
common law rule of absolute
tains the
effect
preclusive
determines the
law
state’s
plain jurisdictional re
verity, under which
jurisdictional findings contained within
con
are
citals contained within
judgment, subject of course to the Due
jurisdic
as to the
clusive
Corp.,
A.L.T.
Process Clause. See
Harper
proceeding,5
in a collateral
tion
1458-59.6
seeks to
F.2d at
Defendants should be
asserts
rationale, reasoning that
extend this
raising
from
technical service
barred
should have followed Tex
Louisiana Court
collaterally
the Louisiana
process
issues
process
bringing
as’
challenge
judgment.7 Harper
a default
Court.
7. Harper's
argument
jurispru
also finds some
Simpson, 445 S.W.2d
5. See Akers v.
support
dential
in a recent
(Tex. 1969) ("It
firmly
established
rule
that,
holding
law deter
decision
while federal
*8
a
who is not served
in Texas that
defendant
judg
preclusive
the
effect of all federal
mines
not,
appear
as a mat
who does not
case,
a
the federal rule
ments on the merits of
verity
public policy,
the
of a
ter of
attack
diversity
generally
decision in
cases
should
of
judgment
proceeding;
jur
the
in a collateral
of
state in which the
refer to the law
the
import
verity.”).
recitals
absolute
isdictional
rendering
Inc. v.
court sits. See Semtek Int’l
497,
Corp.,531
S.Ct.
Martin
U.S.
121
Lockheed
argue
do
6. We note that the Defendants
not
1021, 1028,
(2001);
also
397
concedes, however,
power
that because this case
to void
judgment[.]”
(citing
the
Baldwin,
517)).9
525,
283
at
51
of a federal district
U.S.
S.Ct.
involves enforcement
Moreover,
federal case law has
al
judgment by
court
another federal district
parties
lowed
rely
federal lawsuits to
on
court, neither
the Full Faith and Credit
power
this
by granting defendants
full faith and credit stat-
Clause nor the
,
ability
judicial
ignore
proceedings,
“to
ute,8
them,
interpreting
con-
or the cases
judgment,
risk a default
and then chal
Traveling
trol. See Baldwin v. Iowa State
lenge
judgment
jurisdictional
on
Ass’n,
522, 524,
Men’s
283 U.S.
51 S.Ct.
grounds
Ins.
proceeding.”
a collateral
(1931).
517, 518,
75 L.Ed.
Ireland, Ltd.,
Corp.
706,
456 U.S. at
of
decline to extend full faith
We
Music, Inc.,
2099;
Broadcast
S.Ct.
principles to cases
this one
and credit
like
Application
F.2d at 281.
of Texas’ rule of
involving the
of a
enforcement
federal
verity
absolute
would undermine this foun
judgment by another
federal court. We
dational principle
jurisdictional
of federal
begin
analysis by reiterating
pow
our
by preventing
testing
law
defendants from
registration
inquire
er of a court of
into
jurisdiction
a district
by suffering
court’s
jurisdiction
rendering
court be
judgment,
raising jurisdiction
default
then
enforcing
rendering
judg
fore
al
issues when the default
is
Indus.,
Covington
ment. See
629 F.2d at
reason,
enforced. For that
we decline to
(“When,
proceeding,
in an enforcement
Harper’s request
sustain
use Tex
we
validity
questioned
as law to
preclusive
determine the
effect of
ground
personal jurisdic
on this
lack of
jurisdictional
[of
findings contained in a fed
tion],
enforcing
court has
judgment.10
the inherent
eral
inquiry[.]”).
requirement
made
a federal
that a court
Moreover,
sitting
diversity.
jurisdiction
person
court
have
over the
before "ren
argued
pre-
dering judgment
process
has not
that Texas law on issue
is rooted in due
apply
requirement
clusion should
is a
recitals
basic
that must be satisfied
or,
jurispru-
under
Court’s Erie
before a valid
can be had
Thus,
case,
See,
Harper's
germane
e.g.,
dence.
we need not address
to this
be enforced.
Ireland, Ltd.,
702,
argument
Corp.
terms Erie.
Ins.
456 U.S. at
("The requirement
8. This statute
personal jurisdiction
have
flows not from Art.
Ill,
Clause.”).
but from the Due Process
If
judicial proceedings
any
[t]he ...
juris
court did
have
such
such State ... shall have the same
diction,
its
is invalid. See N.Y.
every
full faith and credit in
court within
Life
Brown,
(5th
Ins. Co. v.
84 F.3d
the United States and its Territories and
1996) ("Ajudgment
if
Cir.
is void
the court
usage
Possessions as
have
law or
that rendered it lacked
... of the
the courts of such State....
(internal
omitted)
parties[.]”
quotations
(quot
(1982).
28 U.S.C. 1738
Serv., Inc.,
ing Williams v. New Orleans Pub.
principle
long lineage
9. This
has a
in our
1984)));
728 F.2d
Cir.
Broadcast
jurisprudence.
Chicago
See
Ins. Co. v. Music, Inc.,
("A
court which
Life
Cherry, 244 U.S.
37 S.Ct.
personal jurisdiction
lacks
over a defendant
(1917) (“There
L.Ed. 966
is no doubt of the
judgment against
cannot enter a valid
general proposition
upon
a suit
defendant.”).
*9
the
of the court render-
ing
recognize
apply
person
it over the
of the defendant
be
10. We
that our refusal to
into.”);
inquired
Lanning,
question
Hall v.
91 U.S.
state law to resolve this
turns on the
(1875) ("[T]he juris-
Since to were amenable record reveals prop- the Louisiana Court inappropriate, is service, the district inquiry the before thus preclu- rules of issue federal erly applied Court, implicates court, before this Texas the whether to determine sion Whitney. only prong the second precluded jurisdictional Court’s the Defendants’ litigation of 17.044(b) Civil of the Texas Section noted Court The Louisiana arguments. provides Code Practice & Remedies “[njowhere any there men- ruling in the is Secretary on the service substituted by or exhibits made any challenges tion of in doing business nonresident defendants that defendant was appears It defendant. place regular do not maintain a Texas that for, way, participat- in present nor Texas, provided in the of business this upon Based proceeding.” the ed in arises out of proceeding relevant business the Louisiana agree we with finding, in See done Texas. Tex. Prac. & Rem. Civ. the Texas court’s decision to afford Court’s 17.044(b) (West 1999). Spe § Code Ann. preclusive effect. no recitals comply must with notice cifically, plaintiffs 17.045(a): of section requirements Properly Louisiana III. The Secretary of is served with If the State the Upon That Service Ruled Defendants copies process for a nonresi- duplicate Pursuant to Texas Law Was Defective dent, of the require he shall statement the dis Having determined of the name address nonresident’s indepen an properly undertook trict home office and shall immedi- home or jurisdic of the Texas Court’s review dent ately copy process of the to the mail judgment against enter a default tion to nonresident. Defendants, turn to the merits the we next 17.045(a). analyzing In Id. at whether raised. The jurisdictional, issues long the Texas arm Harper complied with law, specifically agree that Texas parties, statute, the record “to must screen we arm the cases long the Texas statute and pro that the factually determine address it, service interpreting determine whether in fact Secretary of State vided the was Defendants. process was effective on the home or home office of the nonresident 4(e)(1) (West 1999). See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. (notwithstanding it so la was defendant judgment against a support a default To beled).” Caldwell, Haddad, Mahon requires jurisdictional challenge, law Texas (Tex. Inc., 769, 771 Skaggs, 783 S.W.2d pleadings prove plaintiffs denied). App.1990, writ ame that the Defendants were established consistently service, courts have re nable to evidence Texas compliance quired strict with terms demonstrates the were record Defendants Mahon, arm statute. See required manner served fact Bludworth, According at 771. to the Tex long arm 783 S.W.2d statute. Court, 649; Realty typographical er Whitney “[a] v. L&L (Tex.1973).11 forwarding address ror 500 S.W.2d 95-96 Corp., Bond, sitting proof. bears burden of Bludworth ings made a federal district court Bludworth, diversity. how- at 649 n. 7. As in F.2d ever, Secretary provided to the the addresses possible previously noted This Court has consequently by Harper are uncontested and law on the between Texas and federal tension adequacy we are able to determine the assigns proof: the bur- Texas law burden a matter of law. See id. service as plaintiff, proving den of issues service 60(b) generally under Rule while movant
399 grounds to set aside a default properly therefore determined that service Royal on substituted service.” based Sur inadequate was under Texas law and could plus Lines Ins. Co. v. Samaria Baptist support a default judgment.
Church, (Tex.1992); 840 S.W.2d 383 Conclusion
see also Commission Contracts Gen eral Executive Committee Petroleum A party may personal jurisdic- contest Republic Workers Union Mexico v. tion or method of service refusing to Arriba, Ltd., (Tex. S.W.2d appear, suffering a default judgment, then writ) (“If App.1994, Secretary no collaterally attacking judg- that default copy State sends the citation and a plaintiff ment when the initiates enforce- petition using to the nonresident defendant Thus, proceedings. ment the Louisiana defendant, an incorrect for address properly Court considered whether then a default should be set Texas Court had over the De- aside.”) Moreover, notice to a “[a]ctual fendants. In undertaking its defendant, service, proper without is not analysis, the Louisiana Court appropriate- juris sufficient to convey upon the court ly applied federal rules of preclusion issue judgment against diction to render default juris- to determine that the Texas Court’s Rather, jurisdiction [the defendant]. is de dictional recitals were not entitled to def- pendent upon citation and issued service erence produced because were not provided a manner law.” Wilson after full thorough litigation. Finally, Dunn, (Tex.1990). S.W.2d the Louisiana correctly concluded Harper to provide failed the Secre- The Louisiana Court held that tary with an accurate “home or home of- service respect was defective with to each fice” any address for of the Defendants. because, alia, of the Defendants inter none Hence, we AFFIRM the Louisiana Court’s provided Secretary of the addresses to the judgment voiding the Texas Court’s de- accurately stated a home or home office 60(b)(4). fault under Rule address one of the defendants. AFFIRMED. Harper provided any has not basis for
reversing Instead, this determination. KING, Judge, specially Chief provided concedes that it the Sec concurring: retary with “a former address for ser upon partnership Keaty vice I Keaty concur in the all of Keaty Firm Lafayette at its Judge opinion Benavides’s fine with d/b/a office;” I, exception addresses for Robert and of Part which addresses Thomas typo contained “a a registering power whether court has the graphical error the suite rendering number.” Ac to alter or amend a judg- 60(b). law, cording to Texas through such mistakes ren ment I only write Royal der service defective. Surplus agree state that I Judge with Easter- Lines, 383; Arriba, S.W.2d brook’s treatment of this issue Board of Trustees, S.W.2d at 585. That the Defendants Sheet Metal Workers’ National Erectors, Inc., have had actual notice of service is of no Pension Fund v. Elite (7th Cir.2000). consequence since F.3d 1031 inAs Elite rejected Erectors, expressly Court has an actual no the central issue this case is exception tice to strict compliance jurisdic- with the whether the court had Wilson, terms of the arm statute. tion over the Defendants to enter the de- at 836. judgment against S.W.2d The district court fault them. I concur in *11 however, ease, be- in this Judge Easterbrook’s under either cause analysis, the Judge Benavides’s
analysis or registering the same because
result is [rendering disregard
court is “free formally annul- judgment, without
court’s] 60(b)(4), if the
ling it under Id. at 1034. jurisdiction.” lacked
In the Matter of: Steven HICKMAN; L.
M. Gina
Hickman, Debtors. Hickman; L. M. Gina
Steven
Hickman, Appellees, Texas, Appellant. State McMaster, Franklin Fort Clifford Worth, TX, Appellees. No. 00-10604. Worth, LaRoe, Fort Katherine Anne Appeals,
United States Court of TX, Appellant. Fifth Circuit. July *, HILL JOLLY and
Before BENAVIDES, Judges. Circuit BENAVIDES, Judge: Circuit appeals of Texas the district State court’s determination that the debt owed (“the to it and Steven Hickman Gina Hickmans”) forfei- arising from bad bond ar- dischargeable. The State tures was the default of a bail gues because a “forfei- colloquially referred to as bond ture,” judgment against a bail bond sure- ty nondischargeable under the should be * Circuit, sitting by designation. Judge Circuit of the Eleventh