Buy Belize, LLC, Buy International, Inc., Eco-Futures Development, LLC, Eco- Futures… v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
BUY BELIZE, LLC, BUY INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
ECO-FUTURES DEVELOPMENT, LLC, ECO-
FUTURES BELIZE, LTD., FOUNDATION
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT, INC., GLOBAL
PROPERTY ALLIANCE, INC., POWER HAUS
MARKETING, SANCTUARY BELIZE PROPERTY
OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, SITTEE RIVER
WILDLIFE RESERVE, ESTATE OF JOHN PUKKE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-2352
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:23-cv-01025-TMD, Judge Thompson M. Dietz.
______________________
Decided: March 12, 2026
______________________
N EIL HARRIS K OSLOWE, Potomac Law Group, PLLC,
Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellants.
VINCENT DE P AUL P HILLIPS , J R., Commercial Litigation
Case: 24-2352 Document: 44 Page: 1 Filed: 03/12/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

BUY BELIZE, LLC v. US 2
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also
represented by ERIC P. BRUSKIN, P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY ,
BRETT SHUMATE; BRADLEY G ROSSMAN, Office of General
Counsel, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC.
______________________
Before D YK, BRYSON, and STOLL , Circuit Judges.
S TOLL , Circuit Judge.
Buy Belize, LLC; Buy International, Inc.; Eco-Futures
Development, LLC; Eco-Futures Belize, Ltd.; Foundation
Development Management, Inc.; Global Property Alliance,
Inc.; Power Haus Marketing; Sanctuary Belize Property
Owners’ Association; Sittee River Wildlife Reserve; and the
Estate of John Pukke (collectively, “Buy Belize”) appeal the
United States Court of Federal Claims’s dismissal of their
complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We af-
firm.
The parties are aware of the history of litigation in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Cir-
cuit involving the district court’s turnover order of Buy Be-
lize’s assets to a receiver to satisfy the civil contempt
sanction issued by the district court. Buy Belize brought
suit in the Court of Federal Claims. Buy Belize’s complaint
alleged that the turnover order was an illegal exaction ex-
ecuted by the district court because the district court “erro-
neously decid[ed] that all of the seized assets and property
must remain available to answer for the monetary civil
contempt sanctions,” which was incorrect “[a]s a matter of
law” and resulted in a “wrongful seizure” of the assets.
Appx 14.1 The Court of Federal Claims dismissed, holding
1 “Appx” refers to the Appendix filed with Buy Be-
lize’s Opening Brief. See ECF No. 15.
Case: 24-2352 Document: 44 Page: 2 Filed: 03/12/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

BUY BELIZE, LLC v. US 3
that “any adjudication of [Buy Belize’s] illegal exaction
claim by [the Court of Federal Claims] would unavoidably
interfere with the district court’s decision and circumvent
the appellate process.” Appx 6.
At oral argument before this court, Buy Belize con-
tended that construing its allegations in its complaint as
only pressing an illegal exaction action would be too rigid,
and this court should instead consider whether the district
court’s action was either an illegal exaction or a taking. See
Oral Arg. at 7:28–8:04, 23:48–24:42, https://www.cafc.
uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/24-2352_03022026.mp3. But
whether this case is construed as an action over an illegal
exaction or a taking, the core of Buy Belize’s argument re-
mains the same: a challenge to the authority of a federal
district court. This is not a case like Boise Cascade Corp.
v. United States, where the Court of Federal Claims could
consider whether a taking occurred without considering
the propriety of a district court’s order. See 296 F.3d 1339,
1343–45 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Here, in order for the Court of
Federal Claims (or this court) to evaluate the merits of Buy
Belize’s allegations, it would need to determine whether
the district court erred in issuing its turnover order. The
path for such a challenge was to appeal the turnover order
to the Fourth Circuit, as all the Court of Federal Claims
plaintiffs did as to the original turnover order, but only the
individual defendants involved in the district court action
did as to the second order. See Shinnecock Indian Nation
v. United States, 782 F.3d 1345, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(“Permitting parties aggrieved by the decisions of Arti-
cle III tribunals to challenge the merits of those decisions
in the Court of Federal Claims would circumvent the stat-
utorily defined appellate process and severely undercut the
orderly resolution of claims.”). The Court of Federal
Claims has no jurisdiction to provide collateral review of
another federal court’s decisions. See Allustiarte v. United
States, 256 F.3d 1349, 1351–52 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“As we
stated in Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380
Case: 24-2352 Document: 44 Page: 3 Filed: 03/12/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

BUY BELIZE, LLC v. US 4
(Fed. Cir. 1994), ‘the Court of Federal Claims does not have
jurisdiction to review the decisions of district courts.’”).
We have considered Buy Belize’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
affirm the Court of Federal Claims’s dismissal of Buy Be-
lize’s complaint.
AFFIRMED
Case: 24-2352 Document: 44 Page: 4 Filed: 03/12/2026

-- 4 of 4 --