IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-60614

Summary Calendar

ALVIX LABORATORIES, L.L.C., 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:19-MC-371

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

After obtaining a warrant, the United States seized the funds in a bank 

account belonging to Alvix Laboratories. Believing this seizure to have 

exceeded the warrant’s scope, Alvix filed a motion for the return of its money, 

which the district court denied. Because we conclude that the warrant 

authorized the United States to seize all funds in Alvix’s account, we AFFIRM. 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 3, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-60614 Document: 00515329930 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2020
No. 19-60614

2

I.

On May 29, 2019, the United States obtained a warrant authorizing 

seizure of assets in two bank accounts:

a. MERCHANTS AND MARINE BANK account number [x]9958, 

an account held in the name of THE GARDEN’S PHARMACY, 

LLC, and authorized signers: S. Kelly Levi, D. B. Levi, Jeffrey 

Wayne Rollins, and Dempsey Levi. All monies and assets in 

account.

b. MERCHANTS AND MARINE BANK account number [x]1525, 

an account held in the name of ALVIX LABORATORIES, LLC, 

and authorized signers: Clark J. Levi and Hugh E. Ferry. This 

account received monies from MERCHANTS x9958. All monies 

and assets in account.

The United States executed the warrant one day later, seizing “as being subject 

to forfeiture to the United States of America” all of the funds in the x1525 bank 

account, $895,740.36. 

Alvix moved the district court for the return of $895,189.78 seized by the 

United States. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) (“A person aggrieved by an unlawful 

search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for 

the property’s return.”). Alvix argued that the warrant—which mentioned that 

the x1525 account received funds from the x9958 account—authorized the 

United States to seize funds from the x1525 account only to the extent that 

those funds originated in the x9958 account. The district court denied Alvix’s 

motion, and this appeal followed.

II.

We affirm the district court’s decision to deny Alvix’s motion. A warrant 

satisfies the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement if its language 

will permit an executing officer to reasonably know what item to seize. United 

States v. Layne, 43 F.3d 127, 132 (5th Cir. 1995). We apply a correlative 

“approach of exercising reasonableness in warrant construction” when 

evaluating whether a particular search or seizure exceeds a warrant’s scope. 

 Case: 19-60614 Document: 00515329930 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2020
No. 19-60614

3

United States v. Alva, 885 F.2d 250, 252 (5th Cir. 1989); cf. United States v. 

Hill, 19 F.3d 984, 988-89 (5th Cir. 1994) (“[T]he check stubs served the same 

function as a cash disbursement journal and that a reasonable officer 

knowledgeable of financial records would have reached this conclusion. Thus, 

the check stubs were within the scope of the warrant authorizing seizure of a 

cash disbursement journal.”). The warrant at issue in this case expressly 

applied to “[a]ll monies and assets” in the x1525 account, so the United States

did not exceed the warrant’s scope by seizing all money found in that account. 

In its reply brief, Alvix argues for the first time that the warrant was not 

supported by probable cause, but even if we were to excuse Alvix’s failure to 

make this argument earlier, that argument would be unavailing. When the 

government obtains a warrant authorizing a seizure, the “magistrate’s 

determination of probable cause is entitled to great deference by reviewing 

courts.” United States v. Allen, 625 F.3d 830, 840 (5th Cir. 2010). To survive 

appeal, “[a] magistrate needs only a substantial basis” for concluding that 

probable cause exists. Id. After reviewing the sealed affidavit associated with 

the warrant at issue in this case, we conclude that the magistrate who issued 

the warrant had such a basis.

III.

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM.

 Case: 19-60614 Document: 00515329930 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/03/2020