FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT AUG 24 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1255 9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-60235 CR-JI C UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us LYNN SOREIDE, In t e r e s t ed P ar ty -A ppe lla nt.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (A ug us t 24, 200 6) Be fo re BL A CK , BA RKE T T a nd C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Ly nn Soreide appeals a grant of sum m ary j udgm ent to the United States in an
an ci l l ar y ac t i o n fo l l o wi n g a p re l i m i n ar y o rd ero f c ri m i n al fo rf ei tu re o f h erh u s b an d ’s int er es t i n c er

ta in p ro pe rty . W e fi nd n o e rr or a nd a ff irm the sum m ar y j udgm en t.2 I. BACKG ROUND L ynn Sor ei de is the fo rm er w if e of A rn e So re ide , a N or

w eg ia n nati ona l. A rn e So re ide w as c onvi ct ed

of c onsp ir ac y

to co m m it m ai l and w ir e fr au d, in vio la tio n of 18 U
. S. C. § 37 1; f

ili ng a fr au dul en t ta x re tur n, in vio la tio n of 26 U
. S. C. § 72 06; f ili ng
a fr au dul en t c or

por at e ta x r etur n, al so i n vi ola tio n of 26 U
. S. C. § 72 06; m

ult ipl e counts o f m ail and wire fra ud, in violatio n of 18 U. S. C. §§ 13 41 and 13 43; m oney laundering, in viol ation of 18 U.S .C. § 1 9 5 6 ; and engaging in prohib ited m onetary tr an s a c t i o n s , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 9 5 7
. A rn e S o r e i d e c o m m i t t e d h i s a ct s of fr au d a nd m on eylaunde ri ng a s part of agr an d sc he m e inv olv ing his te le co m m un ic at io ns co m

pa ny, A ccu te l Co m

m un ic at io ns (“ Accu te l” ). The superseding indictm ent included a forfeiture a llegation th at stated that, a s
a re sul t of th e cri m es a lle ge d, A rn e So re ide w oul d f or fe it to the U nit ed

S ta te s a ll property invol ved in or trace able t o property invo lved in the alleged crim es. (Appeal N o. 05- 1534 4, R. 1- 44 at 22- 23. ) A ft er fi ndi ng A rn e So re ide gui lty a s c ha rg ed , the j ury issued a special verdict finding th at $7.5 mil lion in U. S. curre ncy and the real pr ope rty loc at ed a t 19 5 A le xa nde r Pa lm

Ro ad , Boc a Ra ton , F lor ida ( “ the S or ei de residence”) constitu ted pr o p er t y invo lved in or traceable to A rne Sore ide’ s m oney la und eri ng an d p ro hi bi te d m on et ary tra ns act io ns cri m es . (App eal No. 0 5- 15 34 4, R. 2- 129.) When the district c ourt se ntenced Ar ne Soreide, it entered a pre lim inary orderThe criminal forf eiture statutes provide for forf eiture of substitut e asse ts of the def endant 1 if the prope rty

involved in or trac eable to the crime is not ava i l ab l e fo r fo rf ei ture. 21 U.S.C. § 853(p). Third pa

rties m ay contest the for feiture of these substitute assets in the same way as they may contest the for feiture of assets involved in or trac eable to the crime. See21 U.S.C. § 853(n); United States v. Morgan , 224 F.3d 339, 341 ( 4th Cir. 2000). 3 of f or fe iture na m ing his int er es t i n: ( 1) the S or ei de r es ide nc e, a nd ( 2) $7, 500, 000. 00 in U.S. cur ren cy

(th e “ m on ey

jud gm en t” ). (R.1 -1 55 at 2 -3 .) T he dis tr ic t c ourt the n e nte re d a s eries of a m en de d pr el im inary

or de rs of fo rf ei tur e. T he f

ir st of the se ide nti fi ed A rn e So re ide ’ s int er es t in the pr oc ee ds o f the sale of a D ay s Inn and Suites Hotel located i n Jacksonv ille, Florida (the “ hotel”), a s subs tit ute pr ope rty

to be fo rfeited

in pa rt ia l sa tis fa ct ionof the m one y

j udgm en t. 1 (R. 1-159.) T he court’ s second and th i rd amended prelim inary orders of f

orfeiture
na m ed A rn e So re ide ’ s in te re st in th e pr oc ee ds o f anins ur an ce pol ic y in the sum

of $99, 327. 98 i n U nit ed

S ta te s c ur

re nc y , (R
. 1- 175) , an d his int er es t in the pr oc ee ds o f the sa le of 550 SE 9thS tr ee t, a/k/ a 980 SE 5thA ve nue , D el ray Be ac h, F lor ida

( the

“ D el ray Be ac h pr ope rty ”) a s a ddi tio na l su bst itu te as se ts fo r the m one y j udgm en t. (R
. 1- 178. ) N one of

the pr el im inary

or de rs of fo rf

ei tur e m en tio ne d a Suntr

ust Bank account num

bered 10000 1918 9546 , w hich contained th e pro ce eds of the sale of a
va cant l ot n ex t t o th e hot el ( the “ va cant l ot” ), or tw o of fi ce bui ldi ngs loc at ed

a t 10 0 and 150 Sam

ple Road, Pom

pano Beac h, Florida ( the “ Pom pano Beach properties”).4

L ynn S or ei de w as not

im pli ca te d inA rn e So re ide ’ s c ri m ina l a ct ivi ty
. P ri or to A rn e So re ide ’ s c onvi ct ion , L ynn S or ei de w as not e m plo y ed but he ld the ti tle of pr es ide nt o f A cc ute l. H er onl y inc om e w as an “ ow ne r’ s dr aw ” tha t sh e re ce ive d f ro m A cc ute l. All of the pr ope rt ie s th at a re the sub

j ec t of thi s a ppe al w er e pur ch as ed

in L ynn S or ei de ’ s nam e or

in the na m e of a co m

pa ny of w hic h sh e w as pr es ide nt. A nd, al l of the pr ope rt ie s w er e pu rc ha se d w iththe pr oc ee ds o f A cc ute l’ s f ra udul en t busi ne ss o r loans se cu re d by m ortga ge s onpr ope rt ie s th at w er e pur ch as ed

w iththo se pr oc eed s. Ly nn So rei de fil edtwo s e p a r a te swo rn pe ti ti on s p ur su an t t o 2 1 U.S.C. § 853( n) , a sse rt ing int er es ts i n a ll of the pr ope rt ie s nam ed

in the pr el im inary

or de rs of fo rf ei tur e ex ce pt the li fe ins ur an ce pr oc ee ds. D es pit e the f ac t tha t the va cant l ot and Pom pano Beach p ro p erties were not m entioned in any of the court’ s prelim inary
or de rs o f f

o rfei tu re, Lynn So rei de als o a ss ert edin te res ts in th os e p ro pe rti es . ( See R. 1- 169 ¶¶ 8, 10. ) In both peti tio ns, L ynn S or ei de sta te d th at she he ld i nte re sts in al l of the pr ope rt ie s she ide nti fi ed “ be ca use [s he ] w as abon a fi de pur ch as er f or va lue of the right, title, or

interest in the subject properties. ” (R .1-169 ¶ 11; R.1- 204 ¶ 8.) Thre e m onth s after

Ly nn Soreide filed her first petition , the Governm ent filed
a m oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t se ek ing dis m iss al of the pe tit ion s and f

or fe iture of al l of the pr ope rt ie s, inc lud ing the va cant lot an d the Po m pa no Be ac h pr ope rt ie s. T he5

district court granted the Governm ent’ s m otion for sum m ary j ud g m ent; dism issed L ynn S or ei de ’ s pe tit ion s w ithpr ej udi ce ; and ord er ed fo rf ei tur e of the re sid en ce , the hot el , the D el ray

Be ac h pr ope rty , the va cant l ot, a nd the P om pa no B ea chpr ope rt ie s. (R. 1-236; Appeal No. 05-1534 4, R. 3-247.) II. ISS UES ON AP PE AL AN D C ONT ENT IONS OF THE P AR TIES O n a ppe al , L ynn S or ei de c ont en ds tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in gr an tin g th e G o v e rn m e n ts u m

m a ry j u d g m e n ta n do r d e r i n g f o r f e i tu r e o f t h e r e s i d e n c e , t h e h ote l,
an d th e D el ray Be ac h pr ope rty be ca use : (1 ) at the tim e of the ac ts giv ing r ise to the fo rf ei tur es , she he ld an ow ne rs hip int er es t i n a t l ea st s om e portio n of e ac h of the pr ope rt ie s su

pe ri or to he r husb an d’ s inte re st, or , al te rn at ive ly , ( 2) she w as abon a fi de pur ch as er f or va lue of at le as t som e portio n of e ac h of the pr ope rt ie s. S he doe s no t quanti fy th e ex te nt of he r as se rt ed int er es ts. L ynn S or ei de a lso c ont en ds tha t the forfe iture of the vacant lot violated her due process rights because, prior to the final order of f orfeiture, she had n o n o t i ce that the vacant lot was subje ct to forfe iture. T he G ove rn m en t r es pond s th at L ynn Sor ei de ’ s cla im tha t she he ld any int er es t superior to Arne S oreide’ s interest in the properties is tim e barr ed because she fa iled to i de nti fy

tha t ba sis f

or he r as se rt ed

int er es t in her pe tit ion s. T he G ove rn m en t a lso
ar gue s th at , be ca

use al l the m oni es use d to pur ch as e the pr ope rt ie s w er e the pr oc ee ds of ( or tr ac eab le to th e pr oc ee ds o f) A rn e So re ide ’ s c ri m es , L ynn S or ei de c oul d no t6

hol d a super ior int er es t in any of the pr ope rt ie s at the tim e of the ac ts g ivi ng r ise to the forfe iture. F i na lly , the G overnm ent argues that Ly nn Soreide cannot establish that sh e w a s , w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f 2 1 U
. S
. C
. § 8 5 3 ( n ) ( 6 ) ( B ) , a b o n a f i d e p u r c h a se r of
an yo f t h e p r o p e rt i e s . A s t o t h e v a c a n tl o t , t h e G o v e rn m e n tc o n t e n d s t h a tL ynn Soreide’ s claim

that she lacke d no tice of that property ’ s im pendin g forfeiture is belied by the district court record as Ly nn Soreide raised her interest in that property in her fi rs t pe tit iona nd l iti ga te d th e na ture and e xte nt o f he r int er es t thr ough out the pr oc ee din gs i n th e dis tr ic t c ourt.

III. STA ND AR

D O F REVIE W W e re vie w adis tr ic t c ourt' s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t de novo , appl y ing the
sa m e le ga l s ta nd ard s u se d b y th e d is tri ctco ur t. S

e e , e . g. , Hil bu rn v . M

urata E le cs . N

. A m ., Inc. , 1 81 F
. 3d 1 220, 122 5 ( 11th C ir
. 199 9)
. S um m ar y j udgm en t i s ap pr opr ia te w he re “ ‘ the re is no g enuin e iss ue a s to an y m at er ia l fa ct a nd the m ovi ng party is entitled to a judgm ent as a m atter of law. ’ ” W oode n v . B d. of R eg en ts o

f the U niv
. Sy s. of G a. , 247 F. 3d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 7 1 (11th Cir. 2001) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P
. 56 (c))
. IV. D ISCU SSION A rn e So re ide ’ s pr ope rty

w as f or fe ite d un de r a fed eral statu te pr ovi din g f or forfe iture of a c onvi cted defendant’ s property as part of his sentence f or m oneyTh e statut e pr ov ide s, “ Th e c ourt , in impo sin g se nte nc e on a pe rs on c on vic te d of a n o ff e ns e 2 in violation of section 1956, 1957, or 1960 of [Title 18] , shal l o rd er t h at t he per son forfe it to the Un ite d State s any pr op e rt y , re a l or pe rs on a l, inv olv e d in su c h o ff e ns e , o r a ny pr op e rt y tr a c e a ble to such prope rty .” 7 la un de rin g an d p ro hi bi te d m on et ary tra ns act io ns . See 18 U. S. C. § 982 (a)( 1). T hat 2 sta tu te in co rp or at es the standard s and p ro ce dur es out lin ed in the Co m

pr eh en siv e Dru g Abu se Prev en ti on an d Con tro l Act, 21 U.S.C. § 8 53
. See 18 U. S. C. § 982 (b)(1). Purs ua nt t o 21 U
. S. C. § 853(n) , a thi rd pa rty w ish ing to as se rt

a n in te re st i n pr ope rty sub j ec t t o apr el im inary

or de r of c ri m ina l f

or feitu re has th irty

da y s to pe tit ionf or a dj udi ca tio n of tha t inte re st. T he pe tit ionm ust be sig ne d un de r pe na lty of pe rj ur y a nd m ust “ se t f orth the na tur e an d e xte nt o f the pe tit ion er ’ s rig ht, ti tle , or int er es t i n th e pr ope rty , the ti m e an d c ir cu m stanc es of the pe tit ion er ’ s a cquis iti on o f the r igh t, ti tle , or

int er es t i n th e pr ope rty , a ny a ddi tiona l f

ac ts s uppo rt ing the petition er’ s claim , and the relief sought.” 2 1 U. S. C. § 853 (n)(3). T he district court conducts a procee ding to adjudicate the inter est asserted in the petition. 21 U. S. C. § 853 (n)(2). U nli ke the c ivi l f

or fe iture sta tut es , the c ri m ina l f or fe iture statu te s c ont ai n no provisi on for an “ inno cent owner ” defe nse for third parties. Instead, under 21 U .S .C. §853 (n )( 6) , “ th ird pa rty

pe tit ion er s c ane sta

bli sh the ir

int er es t i n f

or fe ite d pr ope rty in onl y two w ay s.” U

nit ed Sta tes v . Ke nne dy , 201 F
. 3d 1 324, 132 8 ( 11th C ir
. 200 0)8

(c iti ng United States v. R eckm eyer , 8 3 6 F
. 2 d2 0 0 , 2 0 3 ( 4 t h C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) )
. T o o b t ai n
re lie f fr om a pr el im inary or de r of fo rf ei tur e, a pe tit ion er

m ust pr ove e ith er : ( 1) a t the t i m e o f th e ac t s g i v i n g ri s e to t h e fo rf ei tu re o f th e su b

je ct p ro p er t y, s h e h e l d s o me in te res t in th e pr op ert y su pe rio r to th e in te res t of the de fen da nt , see 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A ); or (2) s h e w as a bona fide purchaser for value w ho pu rchased an interest in the subject property without c ause to believe that the property wa s subject to for fei tu re. See 21 U.S.C. § 8 53 (n )(6 )(B)
.

A. The Re sidence , H otel, and D elray Beach P ropert y O n a ppe al , L ynn S or ei de c ha lle nge s th e sum m ar y j udgm en t an d fi na l or de r of fo rf ei tur e as to the r es ide nc e, the hot el , a nd the D el ray Be ac h prop er

ty ba se d onboth 21 U.S.C. § 8 53 (n )(6 )(A) (t he su pe rio r in te res t p ro vi si o n ) a n d 21 U.S.C. § 853( n) (6 )( B) ( the bon a fi de pur chas er pr ovi sio n)
. W e ad dr es s th es e ch al le nge s in tur n. 1. 21 U
. S. C. § 85 3( n) (6 )( A ): T he S upe ri or I nte re st P ro vis ion L ynn S or ei de ar gue s now , as she did in re spon se to the G ove rn m en t’ s m oti on fo r sum m ar y j udgm en t, tha t the pr ope rt ie s sh oul d no t have be enf or fe ite d to the U nit ed S ta te s bec au se she ha d som e (u nquanti fi ed ) int er es ts se pa ra te a nd a pa rt f ro m (and the re fo re , sup er ior to) A rn e So re ide ’ s int er es ts in the pr ope rt ie s. S he a sse rt s th e supe ri or ity

of the se int er ests ba se d onhe r co nte nti ons tha t sh e sig ne d th e pur ch as e9

co ntr a c t s f

o r t h e p r o p e rt i e s , s h e i n c u rr e dl i ab i l i t i e s b y s i g n i n g m o rt g a g e s o n the pr ope rt ie s, she he ld tit le to the pr ope rt ie s in he r ow n na m e, a nd s he ha d in te re sts in the properties crea ted under Florida law (nam ely , a spous al interest in the properties
as m arital assets and a hom estead right in the residence). The district court addressed the se a rg um en ts i n it s su m m ar y j udgm en t or de r an d f

ound ea ch to be m er itl es s. F or th e rea so ns st at edbe lo w, we do no t re ach th e m eri ts of t he se arg um en ts
. T he c ri m ina l f

or fe iture sta tut e al low s th ird pa rt ie s to a sse rt the ir int er es ts i n pr ope rt ie s su

bj ec t t o f or fe iture thr oughthe fil ing of asw or n pe tit ion , w ith in thirty da y s of the pub lic at ionof

the im pe ndi ng f or fe iture or

of th e thi rd

pa rty a ct ua lly
rece iv in g n ot ic e o f th e im pe nd in g fo rfei tu re, wh ic he ve r is earl ie r. 21 U.S.C. § 853( n) (2 ). T he pe tit ionm ust sta te the ba sis f

or the thi rd pa rty ’ s c la im

to an y int er es t in th e su bjec t p ro pe rty. 21 U.S.C. § 85 3( n) (3 ). Ly nn Soreide filed two tim ely petition s pursuant to 21 U. S. C. § 853 (n). In neither petition d id she assert th at s h e h el d an interest in any of the properties supe ri or to (o r to the e xc lus ionof ) he r husb an d’ s in te re st i n th ose pr op ert ie s at the tim e of the a ct s gi vin g r ise to fo rf ei tur e. R athe r, bo th pet iti ons re co unt the f ac ts o f L ynn S or ei de ’ s pu rc ha se s of th e pr opertie s and b as e he r cl ai m s of int er es t i n th e properties solely on her alleged status as b ona fide p urchaser. Thus, to th e extent that L ynn S or ei de ’ s cl ai m s to the pr ope rt ie s re st o n he r co nte nti on tha t sh e he ld i nte re sts10

in those pr ope rt ie s th at

w er e supe ri or to the int er es ts of A rn e So re ide at the ti m e of the a ct s gi vin g r ise to fo rf ei tur e, tho se c la im s are be la te d. W e w ill not va ca te the
sum m ar y j udgm en t no r pr ovi de r el ie f fr om the fi na l orde r of fo rf

ei tur e bas ed

upo n a cl ai m th at was no t as se rte d a s re qu ire d b y th e st at ut e. C.

f. U nit ed Sta tes v . Str ube , 58 F. S upp. 2d 5 76, 585 ( M. D
. P a. 199 9) ( de ny ing c la im s of th ird pa rties a s un tim el y
w he n th ose cl ai m s w er e not m ad e in pe tit ion s but in re spon se to gove rn m en t’ s m oti on to dism iss). 2. 21 U
. S. C. § 85 3( n) (6 )( B) : T he Bo naF ide P ur ch as er P ro vis ion W e do address the m erits of the claim s that we re included in the petition s– that L ynn S or ei de a cquir ed

a n in te re st i n e ac h of

the for fei te d pr ope rt ie s be ca use she purchased them

as a bona fide purchaser for valu e. The crim inal forfeiture statutes al lowathi rd

pa rty to av oid f or fe iture of

he r int er es t i n a n as se t if tha t thir d party
es ta bli she s th at

she pur ch as ed

tha t i nte re st f

or fa ir m ar

ke t val ue w ith out

r ea sona ble
no ti ce t ha t t he ass etwas s ub ject t o fo rfei tu re. 2 1 U.S.C. § 85 3( n) (6 )(B)
. How ever, 21 U. S. C. § 853(n)(6)(B) is of n o help to Lynn Soreide in this case. That provision exis ts onlyto protect subseq uent p u rchaser s of “ the defendan t’s int er es t ” in an ass et
. Ke nne dy , 201 F.3 d at 13 30 ( em pha sis in or igi na l) ; se e als o Re ckm eyer , 836 F. 2d at 208 (interpreting the statute to rea ch “ persons who [gave] value to t he de fe ndan t in an arm s’ -length transaction with the expectation th at they11

w oul d r ec ei ve equiv al en t va lue in re tur n. ”) (e m pha sis ad de d)
. L ynn S or ei de doe s no t contend th at she purchased an i n t erest in any of the properties fr om

Ar ne Soreide. Indeed, she a dm its that each of the properties w as purchased from a third party

seller. Thu s, Lynn So rei de is no t t he type o f bo na fid e p ur ch as er t h a t 2 1 U
. S.C. § 853( n) (6 )( B) pr ote ct s. Fo r the fo re goi ng re as ons, w e af fi rm the gr an t of

sum m ar y j udgm en t a s to the
r e s i d e n c e , h o t e l , a n dDe l r a y B e a c h p r o p e rt y. B. T he V ac an t Lo t L ynn S or ei de c ont en ds tha t the f or fe iture of

the va cant l ot viol at ed he r ri ght s to d ue pr oc es s. S he c ont en ds tha t sh e ha d no kno w le dge , be fo re the f ina l or de r of forfe iture, that the vacant lot m ight be forfe ited. More specifically , she c ontend s that the va cant l ot w as not

m en tio ne d in an y of the pe tit ion s or i n th e ple ad ing s r el at ing to summ ary j udgm ent and that it wa s added into the final order of forfe iture “ lit er all y without prior not ice or an opp ortunityto be heard. ” (Appel l an t ’s Op en ing Brief at 24)
. T he G ove rn m en t c ont en ds tha t Ly nn Sor ei de ha d suff

ic ie nt noti ce of the va cant lot’s im pendin g forfe iture because she herself raised the issue of her interest in that pr ope rty in he r fi rs t pe tit ionf

or a n a nc ill ar

y pr oc ee din g. Contrary to Ly nn Sor ei d e’ s contentio ns on app eal, reviewof the rec ord de m onstra te s th at

she ha d no t on ly

not ic e but

a ct ua l kn ow le dge tha t the va cant l ot12

m igh t be f

or fe ite d. I nde ed , a s th e G ove rn m en t po in ts o ut, L ynn S or ei de ’ s f ir st pe tit ionide nti fi ed the va cant l ot and s et f orth the f ac ts s ur ro undi ng i ts p ur ch as e, in t h e s ame w ay as t h e p et i t i o n d i s cu s s ed t h e p ro p er t i es l i s t ed i n t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s prelim inary

order of f

orfeiture. A nd, the G overnm ent’ s m oti o n for sum m ary j udgm ent discuss ed the vacant lot and argued that Ly nn Soreide had no int erest in that pr ope rty tha t m igh t pr ev en t f

or fe iture . ( A ppe al N o. 05- 1534 4, R. 3- 207 at 6- 7. ) L ynn Soreide’ s response to th at m otion for s u mm ary j udgm ent reitera ted her claim to an interest in the vacant lot but did n o t co m plain that th e vacant lot wa s not a proper subject of forfe iture because it wa s not listed in any prelim inary

order of f

orfeiture. (R. 3-231 at 5.) Finally , before the final order of forfe iture wa s entered, the d i s t ri ct
co u rt g ranted the G overnm ent’ s m otion for sum m ary j udgm ent in an order that dis cu sse d th e va cant l ot and fo und tha t Ly nn Sor ei de ha d no int er es t i n th at pr ope rty th atwou ld pre ve ntfor fei tu re. (R.3 -2 36 at 7 .) In short, the re cord dem onstrates that Ly nn Soreide’ s due process rights were not vio la te d wi th res pe ct

to the f or fe iture of

the va cant l ot. S he ha d no tic e tha t the
va cant lot was at is sue in the a nc ill ar y pr oc ee din g a nd p re se nte d a rg um en ts t o th e dis tr ic t c ourt a s to w hy

tha t pr ope rty

sho uld not be f or fe ite d to the U nit ed

S ta te s. The se arg um en ts were co ns id ered an d re jecte d b y th e d is tri ctco ur t.13 V. C ONC LUS ION Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, t he su m m ary jud gm en t i s AFF IRM ED. AFFIR MED.