United States v. Autoland Inc

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: December 13, 2000
• Docket: 00-30478
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-30477 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

FRANK C. FEEBACK, Defendant-Appellant.

___________________

No. 00-30478 Conference Calendar

AUTOLAND, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 98-CR-30039-4 -------------------- December 13, 2000

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Autoland, Inc., a used-car business, and its owner, Frank C.

Feeback, entered conditional guilty pleas to a charge of mail

fraud. The defendants reserved the right to appeal the order

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Nos. 00-30477 & 00-30478 -2-

denying the motion to dismiss the indictment. We review de novo

whether the indictment alleged the essential elements of the

crime charged, fairly informed the defendants of the charges, and

eliminated the risk of future prosecutions for the same offense.

United States v. Alford, 999 F.2d 818, 823 (5th Cir. 1993).

The indictment alleged that Feeback and Autoland forged

signatures on titles and affidavits for the purpose of

misrepresenting the repossessions and voluntary returns as

rescinded sales in order to secure sales-tax refunds. The

defendants argue that Louisiana law provides for sales-tax

refunds for voluntary surrender or repossession in addition to

recission of sale. Even if Louisiana law allowed for the refund

of sales tax for repossessed or voluntarily returned vehicles,

seeking the refund by misrepresenting the transactions as

rescinded sales is an effort to obtain money by means of false

representations which is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 1341. This

indictment is sufficient. See United States v. Duncan, 919 F.2d

981, 990 (5th Cir. 1990); Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 25

(1999).

Feeback challenges his sentence arguing that the district

court was clearly erroneous in finding that he was an organizer

or leader of the criminal enterprise involving five or more

people under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). This finding is supported by

the information contained in the Presentence report (PSR).

Feeback has not shown this information to be inaccurate or

unreliable. See United States v. Lage, 183 F.3d 374, 383-84 (5th

Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 1180 (2000). Nos. 00-30477 & 00-30478 -3-

AFFIRMED.