Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Lot 6 Block 4 Lakewood Oak Estates Sec. 2 Harris County, Texas

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 07-20137
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
LOT 6 BLOCK 4 LAKEWOOD OAK ESTATES
SEC. 2 HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
Defendant
v.
ALLISON WILEY,
Claimant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(4:06-CV-1124)
Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Claimant-Appellant Allison Wiley appeals the rulings of the district
court in her action ancillary to forfeiture proceedings arising from the
criminal conviction of her husband and the ensuing forfeiture of their real
property located at 13711 Cypress Pine Circle, Cypress, Texas (“the
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
December 26, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 3 --

2
property”). Specifically, Wiley contends that the district court erred in
denying her innocent-owner defense under 18 U.S.C. § 983(b) and protection
under the Texas State Homestead Exemption which the district court ruled is
forfeitable pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853; as a result of which the court
determined Wiley’s interest in the property to be 8.84% in the eventual sale
proceeds of the property. In her said ancillary proceedings in the district
court, Wiley also asserted that she was a bona fide purchaser without
knowledge in addition to her status as an innocent owner of the property and
her protection from forfeiture under the Texas homestead law.
Following a careful analysis of Wiley’s and the government’s legal and
factual positions, including details of funds used by Wiley and her husband in
acquiring the property and the allocation between tainted and non-tainted
funds, the district court determined that 17.68% of the purchase price was
paid for with legitimate funds, entitling Wiley to her community half, or an
8.84% interest in the property. The court authorized the government to
compel the sale of the property irrespective of Wiley’s homestead claim under
Texas law, concluding that, under the Supremacy Clause, Congress had the
authority —— which it exercised —— to provide for the criminal forfeiture of
property and, in so doing, to craft a federal forfeiture statute that
“trumps...state-created homestead interests.”
Counsel for the government and Wiley have urged us to dispense with

-- 2 of 3 --

3
oral argument and to dispose of this matter on the basis of the appellate
briefs and record on appeal. We have, therefore, carefully reviewed that
record and applied the law as explicated in the briefs of the parties and our
independent research, applying the relevant established standards of review
applicable here, viz., reviewing the district court’s legal conclusions de novo
and its factual determinations for clear error. In this instance, the facts are
largely undisputed, so the outcome of this appeal turns in principal part on
the legal determinations of the district court.
Our review of the record on appeal, the rulings of the district court, and
the legal arguments of counsel for the respective parties satisfies us that the
district court correctly denied Wiley the protection she sought under the
Texas Homestead Exemption, the innocent-owner defense, and the Bona Fide
Purchaser Doctrine; and that it correctly determined Wiley’s interest in the
property and in the ultimate proceeds of the sale thereof. Although we are
not unmindful of the difficulties and hardships visited on Wiley or
unsympathetic with her plight, we conclude that the law pertinent to the
facts of this case was correctly determined and applied by the district court.
As such, its rulings and judgment are, in all respects,
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --