Sheila Renee Bell v. Hawker Beechcraft Global Customer Support, L.L.C., doing business as Hawker Beechcraft Services
No. 15-50543
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jan. 6, 2016
PER CURIAM:*
Sheila Renee Bell has filed an appeal on September 14, 2015. Her brief and record excerpts have been read. It appears that Ms. Bell lost custody of children in a Texas court in 2001. She has complained about that in eight federal lawsuits she has filed, and at this point no justifiable legal claim is stated or briefed. She has received prior judgments ruling that her claims are frivolous, and at least two district judges have threatened sanctions. The courts have decided and Ms. Bell has to accept that decision.
AFFIRMED.
Francisco Colorado Cessa v. Hawker Beechcraft Global Customer Support, L.L.C., doing business as Hawker Beechcraft Services
No. 15-50543
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jan. 6, 2016
Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Claimant and Appellant, Francisco Colorado Cessa, filed his notice of appeal contending that the district court abused its discretion in confirming the interlocutory sale of a seized airplane. For the reasons described below, we AFFIRM.
In August 2013, the government filed the present civil forfeiture action against Cessa‘s various assets. The civil forfeiture complaint rests upon and incorporates the money laundering allegations contained in the criminal case against Cessa. One of the assets that the government seeks to forfeit civilly is a Hawker airplane—at issue in this appeal.
In December 2014, the government moved the district court under Supplemental Rule G(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an interlocutory sale of the Hawker airplane. The motion for sale was joined by Hawker Beechcraft Global Customer Support, LLC (“HBS“) based on a mechanic‘s lien that it holds against the plane for $735.31 of unpaid storage fees. The government included with its motion three appraisals of the plane which were for $2,772,131.00, $3,242,600.00, and $4,135,000.00, respectively. Thereafter, the government sought to sell the Hawker in a private sale to Road Ranger LLC for $2,250,000.00. The government noted that the plane had depreciated 14.5% between June 2012 and December 2014, and that it costs about $1,700.00 per month to store the airplane. The district court approved the sale. Cessa appeals the sale order. Specifically, Cessa contends that the district court abused its discretion in confirming the interlocutory sale of the seized airplane for more than $1.13 million below its purported fair market value. Cessa argues that the sale will effectively transfer more than a million dollars of his wealth to Road Ranger LLC. Moreover, he contends that the government failed to prove depreciation and that the storage fees for the airplane are a small percentage of its value.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This court reviews the district court‘s approval of the sale for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Real Prop. & Residence located at 4816 Chaffey Lane, 699 F.3d 956, 960 (6th Cir. 2012) (“When a district court exercises its discretionary authority to act, we review that exercise for abuse of discretion.“). “[T]he judge can range widely in deciding what factors to consider, and what weight to give them, in making his ruling. He has, in other words, considerable discretion, which implies a deferential standard of appellate review.” United States v. Approximately 81,454 Cans of Baby Formula, 560 F.3d 638, 641 (7th Cir. 2009).
ANALYSIS
Rule G(7)(b)(i) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions authorizes a court to order an interlocutory sale of property when:
(A) the property is perishable or at risk of deterioration, decay, or injury by being detained in custody pending the action; (B) the expense of keeping the property is excessive or is disproportionate to its fair market value; (C) the property is subject to a mortgage or to taxes on which the owner is in default; or (D) the court finds other good cause.
Here, the district court ordered the interlocutory sale of the Hawker airplane after finding that the airplane was depreciating in value. Moreover, the district court found that continued possession would result in excessive costs for maintenance and storage. The sale procedures were fair and the government adequately publicized the sale. Accordingly, the district court acted within its discretion to approve the sale. Although the sale is for less than the appraisals which were between $2,772,131.00 and $4,135,000.00, it
The record on appeal supports the district court‘s decision to sell the Hawker airplane in order to avoid the loss in value from depreciation as well as maintenance and storage costs. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion and its ruling is AFFIRMED.
Kearney S. Loughlin v. Kenneth Todd
No. 15-30484
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jan. 6, 2016
Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
On May 12, 2015, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana entered a judgment ordering Plaintiff‘s counsel, Kearney Loughlin, to pay to Kenneth Todd, M.D., J.D. a sanction in the amount of $1,500.00. The court further ordered that the sanction be paid by counsel and not billed as an expense to the Plaintiff. Mr. Loughlin appeals the sanction order.
BACKGROUND
Dr. Todd received a subpoena to appear in court and, accordingly, cancelled and rescheduled patients for that day in order to appear in court to testify. Additionally, he spent time reviewing his records in order to be prepared for his appearance.
The underlying matter was settled eight calendar days before it was scheduled for trial. Additionally, the parties filed a notice of the settlement with the court one week before trial. Mr. Loughlin, however, failed to properly advise Dr. Todd that the underlying matter was not going to trial. He alleged that he left a voicemail with Dr. Todd the day before trial. Dr. Todd testified that his answering machine specifically instructs callers not to leave messages. Dr. Todd testified that by taking a day off work he lost out on approximately $2,000.00 worth of revenue.
The district court determined that it was unreasonable for Mr. Loughlin to wait until the day before trial to attempt to inform Dr. Todd of the trial‘s cancellation. The district court specifically noted that Mr.