* District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by

designation. Revised April 22, 1999

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-20905

CHRIS PARADISSIOTIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ROBERT E. RUBIN,

SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY; ET AL,

Defendants,

ROBERT E. RUBIN,

SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY;

R. RICHARD NEWCOMB,

DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas

April 1, 1999

Before JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges, and LAKE, * District Judge.

EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:

Th is case involves enforcement of the Libyan Sanction

Regulations, 31 C.F.R. §§ 550.101-.803 as they relate to the assets

of Chris Paradissiotis, a citizen of Cyprus. Arguing that the

Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”)2

misapplied the regulations and violated the Constitution,

Paradissiotis sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief

in the district court. We agree with the district court’s

essential conclusions that Paradissiotis was validly labeled as a

Specially Designated National of the Government of Libya and that

his attempt to engage in transactions with property in the United

States was validly regulated by the sanctions.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In order to pu n ish Libyan support for international

terrorism, President Ronald Reagan issued, under the authority of

the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701-

06, Executive Order s 12543 and 12544 banning commerce with Libya

and freezing all United Sta tes property interests of the Libyan

Government and its agents. S ee 51 Fed. Reg. 875, 1235 (1986).

Pursuant to the orders, the Secretary of Treasury promulgated the

Libyan Sanction Regulations, which later Presidents have renewed.

Through OFAC, the Treasury Secretary oversees the enforcement of

the sanction regulations and the licensing procedure which permits

covered individuals or entities t o avoid the application of the

sanctions to a particular transaction.

In 1991, OFAC labeled Paradissiotis a Specially

Designated National of Libya pursuant to 31 C.F.R. § 55 0.304(c).

See 56 Fed. Reg. 37156 (1991). This designation was based on his

service as president and member on the Boards of Directors of3

H olborn Investment Company Limited (“HICL”) and Holborn Europea n

Marketing Com pany Limited (“HEMCL”). Both HICL and HEMCL are

subsidiaries of Oilinvest (Netherlands) B.V., which, in turn, is a

wholly owned subsidiary of Oilinvest International, N.V., a Libyan

state-controlled holding company. By virtue of his connection to

these and other Libyan-related entities and, therefore, his direct

or indirect actions taken on behalf of Libya, OFAC found that

Paradissiotis constituted the Governmen t of Libya (“GOL”) for

purposes of the sanctions regulations. S ee 31 C.F.R. § 550.304(c).

As a specially designated national, Paradissiotis’s United States

assets were frozen.

From January 1993 through December 1996, Paradissiotis

applied repeatedly to OFAC for a license under 31 C.F.R.

§ 501.801(b)(2) so that he could sell stock and exercise stock

options in the Coastal Corporation (“Coastal”) and receive the

proceeds. Paradissiotis had received this property as President of

HOTL, a downstream and offshore subsidiary of Coastal, a Delaware

corporati on, before the Libyan sanctions went into effect. OFAC

permitted Paradissiotis to retain counsel in this country but

denied his requests to conduct any other prohibited transaction.

Paradissiotis then filed suit seeking declaratory,

injunctive, and monetar y relief for being categorized as a

Specially Designated National under the regulations. The district

court denied Paradissiotis’s request for a preliminary injunction1 Our review of the district court’s summary judgment is de

novo

, employing the same standards as the district court. S ee

Urbano v. Continental Airlines, Inc.

, 138 F.3d 204, 205 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied

, --- U.S. ---, 119 S. Ct. 509 (1998). Summary

judgment is appropriate when, viewing the evidence in the light

most favorable to the nonmoving party, the record reflects that no

genuine issue of material fact exists, and the moving party is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. S ee Ce lotex Corp. v.

Catrett

, 477 U.S. 317, 322-24, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552-53 (1986); see

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

4 and granted the government’s motion for summary judgment.

Paradissiotis timely appealed.

II. ANALYSIS

Paradissiotis challenges the scope of the Libyan

Sanctions Regul ations, their applicability to his conduct, and

OFAC’s denials of his l icense requests. 1 Paradissiotis contends

that OFAC’s interpret ation of the regulations was incorrect and

exceeded the scope of the authorizing statute and Executive Orders

and violated certain constitutional precepts. The Coastal stock

options expired during the pendency of this case. Because,

however, Paradissiotis still owns Coastal stock that he is

prevented from transferring based on OFAC’s interpretation of the

regulations, the agency’s actions have injured him and remain

judicially reviewable. In the Libyan Sanction regulations,

the Government of Libya is defined broadly to include

Any person to the extent such person is, or has been, or

to the extent that there is reasonable cause to believe

that such person is, or has been, since the effective

date, acting or purporting to act directly or indirectly

on behalf of [the GOL].2 If Paradissiotis continues to maintai n that his acquisition

of property in the United States before the Libyan sanctions were

promulgated insulates the property from controls, he is wrong. The

regulations expressly applied to all property in the United States

at the 1986 effective date. S ee 31 C.F.R. §§ 550.209(a),

550.301(c).

5 31 C.F.R. § 550.304(c). Citing the phrase “to the extent” as a

device of limitation, Paradissiotis f irst maintains that an

individual is included within this regulation only when his actions

benefit the GOL, directly or indirectly. Thus, Paradissiotis

asserts that the r egulations do not regulate “personal”

transactions that do not benefit the GOL. The only plain meaning

of the regulation, according to Paradissiotis, is that he is the

government of Libya when he acts for it, and he “retains a personal

sphere of activity free from OFAC regulation” when he does not. As

a result, he may transfer property, like the Coastal stock, free of

OFAC regulation b ecause he retained the stock while in the

“personal sphere.” 2

The federal courts’ role in thi s controversy is

circumscribed at two levels. First, OFAC’s designation of

Paradissiot is as a specially designated national of Libya, being

“an agency’s application of its own regulations, receives an even

grea ter degree of deference than the C hevron standard, and must

prevail unless plainly inconsistent with the regulation.” C onsarc

Corp. v. United States Trea sury Dept., Office of Foreign Assets

Control

, 71 F.3d 909, 914 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (internal quotation

omitted); see also Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shala la , 512, U.S.6

504, 512, 114 S.Ct. 2381, 2386-87 (1994). Second, a challenge to

OFAC’s regulation must either demonstrate that the statute clearly

forbids the statue’s interpretation or that the interpretation is

unreasonable. S ee Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resour ces

Defense Counsel, Inc.

, 467 U.S. 837, 843-44, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 2781-

83 (1984).

Granting OFAC the extent of deference that it is due, we

cannot accept Par adissiotis’s argument. Section 550.304(c) is

among the definitional provisions in the Libyan sanctions

regulations. Its purpose is to cast the widest possible net over

individuals who are or have been or are suspected of being actors

direc tly or indirectly on behalf of the government of Libya.

Unlike Paradissiotis, we do not read the phrase “to the extent” as

a limiting device, whereby indivi duals who otherwise fall within

the definition may splice their activities and attempt to avoid the

sanctions regulations. Instead, “to the extent” is, in this

context, a proxy for “to whatev er extent” or “to any extent” and

includes rather than excludes subjects fr om the regulations.

Without such language, peop le might argue that they were

independent contractors or brokers or that mere occasional or

incidental work for the government of Libya would exempt them from

coverage. OFAC’s interpretation of the language to broadly cover

“any person” who has acted or purported to act on behalf of the

government of Libya is therefore a reasonable interpretation of its7

regulation, and even an equally reasona ble interpretation by

Paradissiotis would not prevail.

The spuriousness of appellant’s interpretation appears

from the facts of his case. He has been for many years president

and a director of two companies that are controlled by the

government of Libya. In these positions and others he has pursued

Libya’s efforts to expand its presence in European markets. Yet by

semantic casuistry Paradissiotis asserts that even his activities

must be analyzed case-by-case for their coverage by the Libyan

sanction regulations. So applied, the regulations could hardly be

enforced.

This argument also confuses the definitions provision,

where the phrase “to the extent” appears, with the “prohibitions”

section, which contains no such limitation. See 31 C.F.R.

§ 550.209. In the prohibition section, the regulation states that

“no property or interests in property of the government of Libya

that are in the United States

. . . may be transferred, paid,

exported, withdrawn or otherwise dealt in” without a specific

license. 31 C.F.R. § 550.209(a). As the district court put it,

Once a person falls within the definition of

the government of Libya, any transaction by

that p erson is prohibited. The language of

the regulations does not prohibit transactions

only “to the ex tent” that they benefit the

Government of Libya. There is no exception

for transactions by a person, who falls within

the definition of the “Government of Libya,”

to the extent that a transaction is

characterized as in a “personal sphere.”8

For these reasons, OFAC’s interpretation of its own regulation is

not plainly inconsistent with the regulat ory language, nor is it

unreasonable, and in fact it represents the only practical

interpretation.

Paradissiotis’s additional contention, that the Libyan

sanction regulations are inco nsistent with governing law and

executive orders, is weak. The IEEPA grants the President sweeping

powers to prohibit “any person[’s]” p articipation in any

transaction involving o r the exercise of any right, power, or

privilege with respect to any “pr operty in which any foreign

country

. . . has any interest.” See 50 U.S.C. § 1702(a)(1)(B).

Pursuant to this broad authority, Preside nt Reagan authorized a

freeze on all property and interests in property of the GOL and its

agencies, controlled entities and instrumentalities that are in the

United States or hereafter come into the possession or control of

U.S. persons. S ee Executive Order No. 12544, 51 Fed. Reg. 1235.

T he Secretary of Treasury, through OFAC, promulgated su c h

regulations, “including regulations prescribing definitions,” as

necessary to exercise the President’s authority under the Act. S ee

50 U.S.C. § 1704. OFAC was authorized to include individuals like

Paradissiotis within its definition of instrumentalities in order

to serve the purposes of the Executive Orders. See also Consarc

Corp.

, 71 F.3d at 913-14 (all payments by government of Iraq

-- not

merely those in which Iraq maintains an interest

-- blocked by

analogous OFAC sanctions). In matters like this, which involve9

foreign policy and national security, we are particularly obliged

to defer to the discretion of executive agencies interpreting their

governing law and regulations. S ee Haig v. Agee

, 453 U.S. 280, 292

(1981); see also Miranda v. Secretary of Treasury

, 766 F.2d 1, 3-4

(1st Cir. 1985).

Paradissiotis raises several constitutional challenges to

OFAC’s actions. It is not clear whether, as a foreign national

residing outside the U.S., he can assert these claims, but we shall

assume arguendo that he can.

First, he complains that hi s placement on the SDN list

constituted a bill of attainder. No circuit court has yet held

that the bill of attainder clause, U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 3,

applies to regulation s promulgated by an executive agency. S ee

Walmer v. United States Dep’t of Defense , 52 F.3d 851, 855 (10th

Cir. 1995) (“The bulk of authority suggests that the constitutional

prohibition against bills of attainder applies to legislative acts,

not to regulatory actions of administrative agencies.”); Korte v.

Office of Personnel Management

, 797 F.2d 967, 972 (Fed. Cir. 1986);

Marshall v. Sawyer

, 365 F.2d 105, 111 (9th Cir. 1966). Even if we

were inclined to apply the bill of attainder clause to OFAC’s list

of Specially Designated Nationals, however, the re gulatory list

would not be invalid.

A bill of attainder must “inflict[] punishment on an

identified individual without provision of a judicial trial.” S BC

Communications, Inc. v. FCC

, 154 F.3d 226, 233 (5th Cir. 1998).10

OFAC’s list does not inflict such punishment. See id. at 233-35.

The list identifies a group of individuals that OFAC has deemed

subject to various sanction programs and whose business activities

with U.S. persons will be regulated as long as they are agents of

a target country. Even if he were not on the list, Paradissiotis

would still be subject to the generally applicable prohibitions of

the Libyan sanction regulations, as OFAC ultimately determined that

he fell within th e regulatory definition of the GOL. The mere

publication of his name in the list did not evince an “intent to

punish.” S elective Serv. Sys. v. Minnesota Pub. Interest Research

Group

, 468 U.S. 841, 851, 104 S. Ct . 3348, 3355 (1984). The SDN

list re ported Paradissiotis’s status under the regulations; no

concomitant burden was imposed based solely on his inclusion in the

SDN list. The compilation does not violate the Constitution.

Second, Paradissiotis argues that OFAC’s application of

the Libyan sanction regulations is void for vagueness and does not

provide adequate notice to the public of prohibited conduct.

Whatever might be true in marginal cases, this challenge is

meaningless for Paradissiotis. He knows he is an SDN and is part

of the “Government of Libya” and is clearly aware of the

consequences of that status.

Third, although Paradissiotis persists in contesting

OFAC’s regulations requiring the issuance of a license before a SDN

may retain legal counsel, he lacks standing. OFAC granted his only

request for a license to obtain counsel, and Paradissiotis has not11

shown that he will be deprived of legal services in the future

based on the regulations. S ee Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

, 504

U.S. 555, 560, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (unless plaintiff can

show evidence of concrete, actual or imminent future injury, courts

lack standing to consider claims). The district court properly

rejected the Sixth Amendment claim for lack of standing.

Fourth, Paradissiotis alleged a Fifth Amendment takings

claim because, he asserted, the Coast al Stock options expired in

March 1997 while his access to them remained frustrated by OFAC,

and he was not compensated. The district court held against him,

but it was without jurisdiction. Under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1346(a)(2) and 1491(a)(1), the Co urt of Federal Claims has

exclusive jurisdiction for all claims for monetary relief against

the United States greater than $10,000. Paradissiotis’s monetary

damages exceed this jurisdictional amount. Consequently, we must

vacate this portion of th e district court’s judgment. S ee

Wilkerson v. United States

, 67 F.3d 112, 118 (5th Cir. 1995); Amoco

Prod. Co. v. Hodel , 815 F.2d 352, 358-59 (5th Cir. 1987).12 III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s

grant of summary judgment on all points except the takings claim,

and VACATE with respect to the takings claim.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part.