IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

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 Cantu appeals from the final order of criminal forfeiture ordering

the forfeiture of 288 acres in Brooks County, Texas, following his guilty plea to

conspiracy to transport 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. § 982(a)(6). To the

extent that Cantu contends that there is no proof in the record that the property

was subject to forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853 and that neither the

indictment nor the plea agreement provides for the forfeiture, the superseding

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 18, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

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

indictment contained a notice of forfeiture that specified § 982(a)(6) as the basis

for the forfeiture—not § 853. Cantu’s conclusory allegations of error, which lack

citation to the record or appropriate legal authority, do not demonstrate that the

district court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous or that the district court

erred in ordering the forfeiture. See United States v. Juluke, 426 F.3d 323, 326

(5th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Gasanova, 332 F.3d 297, 300-01 (5th

Cir. 2003); cf. United States v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 295 (5th Cir. 1986)

(determining that a party who offered only a bare listing of alleged errors

without referencing supporting authorities or the record abandoned those claims

on appeal). 

Moreover, after a forfeiture hearing in which the government presented

physical and testimonial evidence, the district court found that “the

defendant . . . intended to use the property to facilitate the commission of the

offense of which he has been found guilty.” The district court’s conclusion was

founded upon evidence that over several months, Cantu was paid $100 per

illegal alien for the use of the Brooks County Property which, as argued by the

government in response to Cantu’s appeal, “allowed the organization to

circumventthe United States Border Patrol checkpoint, conceal the illegal aliens

in an area covering hundreds of acres to avoid detection by law enforcement, and

harbor the illegal aliens until drivers could pick them up for transport north of

the checkpoint. The use of the Brooks County Property enabled the alien

smuggling organization to conceal their . . . activities and obstruct and hinder

law enforcement . . .” The district court’s finding that the government

established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Brooks County property

was used to facilitate the crime of conspiracy to 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