United States v. Monica Bertman

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: August 6, 2019
• Docket: 18-20470
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 18-20470 Document: 00515065243 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/06/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-20470 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, August 6, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Plaintiff – Appellee, Clerk

v.

MONICA BERTMAN, also known as Marsha Zaluska Pavlovich, also known as Malkah Aliyah Bertman,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:11-CR-722-3

Before ELROD, GRAVES, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Monica Bertman appeals a final order of forfeiture. Bertman’s house was sold for $1.5 million when the government forfeited her husband Abraham Fisch’s interest in the house as substitute property to satisfy the money judgment against him after his conviction. 1 Because Bertman’s interest in the

* Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 1See United States v. Fisch, 851 F.3d 402 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Fisch v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 378 (2017). Case: 18-20470 Document: 00515065243 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/06/2019

No. 18-20470 house was not forfeited, Bertman received her share of the sale proceeds. However, $916,515.30 was first paid to various local taxing authorities for unpaid taxes and to a bank for mortgage payment, interest, and attorney’s fees. Next, the government took $122,289.12 as Fisch’s forfeited interest. Bertman received $226,055.01. On appeal, Bertman challenges the validity of the taxing authorities’ and the bank’s third-party claims. Substantially based on the cogent analysis provided by the district court in its orders filed on October 30, 2017 and March 28, 2018, we reject Bertman’s challenge. 2 Bertman also argues that the district court erred in calculating her proceeds. We see no error—much less a plain error—with the district court’s calculation as stated in its order filed on June 26, 2018. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the final order of forfeiture substantially for the reasons stated by the district court.

2The district court entered multiple orders all dealing with largely identical issues to address Bertman’s repeated and redundant motions to revisit its previous rulings. 2