USA v. Miguel Ubben, et al, No. 13-10363 (5th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on January 8, 2014.
Download PDF
Case: 13-10363 Document: 00512493100 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 13-10363 Summary Calendar FILED January 8, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, versus MIGUEL UBBEN, Defendant Appellant, NAVIDAD A. UBBEN, Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:12-CV-649 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 13-10363 Document: 00512493100 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2014 No. 13-10363 In this civil action, the appellants challenge the garnishment of property by the United States in partial satisfaction of restitution imposed on an underlying criminal conviction. Appellant Navidad Ubben claims the property was her separate properly under Texas law and that the district court failed to follow state law by refusing to hold a hearing, thus denying procedural due process. The district court issued a short but sufficiently explanatory order, dated January 24, 2013, noting that the Ubbens had the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the garnished accounts contain separate property, which usually requires tracing of the funds (citing United States v. Ingram, No. 4:04-CV-868-A, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2102, at *13-14 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 14, 2005)). The court concluded that [b]ecause [the Ubbens] have not made even the slightest attempt at showing that the accounts contain separate properly and have not disputed any facts raised by the government, a hearing is not necessary and the . . . exemption [from garnishment] does not apply. There is no error, and the judgment, being based on the Final Order of Garnishment, is AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
