Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO.: 1:00cr15-SPM

WILLIAM H. BLACK

___________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO QUASH SUBPOENAS

This cause comes before the Court on the Motions to Quash (docs. 1233,

1235, and 1236) filed by Carla Harris-Black. 

The Government has issued subpoenas to Bank of America and Jaguar

Credit Corp. to obtain access to Mrs. Black’s financial records. Mrs. Black is

entitled to challenge the subpoenas as an affected customer under Title 12,

United States Code, Section 3410. 

The Court must determine whether Mrs. Black is in fact “the customer to

whom the financial records sought by the Government authority pertain.” 12

U.S.C. § 3410(c). If so, the Court must determine whether the Government has

shown that “there is a demonstrable reason to believe that the law enforcement

inquiry is legitimate and a reasonable belief that the records sought are relevant

to that inquiry.” Id. The Court must also determine whether the Government has

“substantial[ly] compli[ed]” with all requirements for obtaining the financial
Page 2 of 3

records. Id.

Turning to the first inquiry, there is no dispute that Mrs. Black is the

customer for whom the Government is seeking financial records. 

Second, Mrs. Black contends that the subpoenas should be quashed

because she purchased the properties prior to her marriage to Defendant William

H. Black. She states that Defendant has no ownership in the properties and that

Defendant is not on any of the paperwork. The Government, however, has a

legitimate inquiry regarding Defendant’s financial resources because he still owes

restitution. Mrs. Black’s financial records are relevant to this inquiry. 

Mrs. Black married Defendant while he was incarcerated in connection

with the current proceedings. As a result of the same conviction, this Court

ordered Defendant to pay restitution in the amount of $12.2 million, and as of

November 17, 2009, a balance of $5.5 million remained. In January 2006, while

serving his prison sentence, Defendant admitted to receiving $3.6 million as a

result of the settlement of a lawsuit against one of Defendant’s former clients. In

March 2006, Mrs. Black purchased a second home for $1.8 million, financing

$997,000 of the purchase price. The Government is seeking Mrs. Black’s

financial records to determine the amount and source of the funds she used as a

down payment; in particular, whether Mrs. Black purchased her home with the

help of Defendant’s settlement funds or other funds held by Defendant. Similarly,

the Government seeks financial information from Jaguar Credit Corp. concerning

CASE NO.: 1:00cr15-SPM
Page 3 of 3

Mrs. Black’s purchase of a 2000 XJ8 Jaguar automobile in July 2003. These

records are relevant to the Government’s legitimate inquiry into the funds

Defendant has to pay restitution.

Finally, Mrs. Black complains that she did not receive a copy of the Bank

of America subpoena as required by Title 12, United States Code, Section

3407(2). At this point in time, however, Mrs. Black is aware of the subpoena and

has in fact challenged it The Government states that the subpoenas were mailed

to her initially. After Mrs. Black indicated that she did not receive the subpoena,

the Government emailed copies to her attorney on November 10, 2009, and sent

copies to her again by mail. The Court finds that the Government has

substantially complied with applicable provisions regarding notice of the

subpoenas and that Mrs. Black has not been prejudiced by her failure to receive

them initially by mail. See Sandsend Fin. Consultants, Ltd. v. Fed. Home Loan

Bank Bd., 878 F.2d 875, 882 (5th Cir. 1989) (reversing a district court’s order to

quash a financial records subpoena because the customer knew of the subpoena

in time to challenge it). Based on the foregoing, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: the motions to quash (docs. 1233, 1235,

and 1236) are denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of June, 2010. 

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

CASE NO.: 1:00cr15-SPM