### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 13-40294 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. EUSTOLIO CANTU, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 6:12-CR-7-2

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Eustolio C antu appeals from the final order of criminal forfeiture ordering the forfeiture o f 288 acres in Brooks County, Texas, following his guilty plea to conspiracy to t r a nsport illegal aliens within the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (iii), (v)(I), and (a)(1)(B)(i); 18 U.S.C. § 98 2 ( a)(6). To the extent t hat Cantu contends that there is no proof in the record that t h e property

was subject to forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853 a nd t h a t neither the indictment nor the plea a greement provides for the forfeiture, t he superseding U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D October 18, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 13-40294 Document: 00512413405 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2013No. 13-40294

indictment contained a notice of forfeiture t hat specified § 982(a)(6) as the basis for the forfeiture—not § 8 53. Cantu’s conclusory a llegations of error, which lack citation to the record o r appropriate legal authority, do not demonstrate that the district court’s f

actual findings were c learly erroneous or that the district court erred in o rdering the forfeiture. See United S t ates v. Juluke , 426 F.3d 323, 326 (5th Cir. 2005); s ee also United S tates v. Gasanova , 332 F.3d 297, 300-01 (5th C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) ; cf. United States v. Ballard , 7 79 F.2d 287, 295 ( 5th Cir. 1986) (determining that a party w ho offered only a b are listing of alleged errors without referencing s upport i n g a u th o riti e s o r the record abandoned those claims on appeal). Moreover, after a fo r f

e iture hearing in w hich the go vernment presented physical and testimonial evidence, the district cou r t found that “the defendant

. . . intended to u se the property to facilitate the commission of the offense of which he has b een found guilty.” The d i strict court’s conclusion was founded upon evidence that over several m onths, Cantu was paid $100 p er illegal alien for the use of t h e Brooks County Property which, as argued by the government i n response to Cantu’s appeal, “allowed the organi z a tion to

c ir c u m v e n t th e U nit e d States Border Patrol c h eckpoint, conceal the illegal aliens in a n area covering hundreds of acres to avoid detection by law enforcement, and harbor the illegal aliens until drivers could pick them up for t ransport north of the c heckpoint. T he use of the Brooks County Property enabled the alien smuggling organization to con c eal their

. . . activities a nd obstruct and hinder law enforcement

. . .” T h e d i s trict court’s finding that the government established by a preponderance of the evidence that t h e Brooks County property

was used to facilitate the crime of conspiracy t o transport illegal aliens, was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the district court’s final order of forfeiture is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 13-40294 Document: 00512413405 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2013