United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-40507

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Raza Services, L.L.C.; Amir Raza, Individually, 

Defendants—Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:19-CV-143

Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

On December 30, 2013, Raza Services executed a promissory note on 

a $522,000 loan from the Small Business Administration. Roughly two years 

later, Raza Services defaulted on its obligations under the note. The United 

States filed suit in district court to recover debts owed under the note. Raza 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 8, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-40507 Document: 00516228963 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2022
No. 21-40507

2

Services contended that the SBA had released all claims related to the note 

in a settlement agreement in a prior state court proceeding. After holding a 

hearing at which Raza Services’s counsel conceded that the neither the 

settlement agreement nor the underlying state court litigation involved the

SBA note at issue in the case before the district court, the district court 

granted summary judgment for the United States. Raza Services appealed.

***

We review an award of summary judgment de novo. FDIC v. Selaiden 

Builders, Inc., 973 F.2d 1249, 1253 (5th Cir. 1992). Summary judgment is 

appropriate only if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on 

file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material 

fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 56. “Typically, suits on promissory notes provide fit grist for the 

summary judgment mill.” FDIC v. Cardinal Oil Well Servicing Co., 837 F.2d 

1369, 1371 (5th Cir. 1988).

On appeal, Raza Services argues that the district court erred in 

disposing of this case on summary judgment because the settlement 

agreement is ambiguous, precluding disposition by summary judgment. Raza 

Services points to a provision in the settlement agreement wherein Raza 

Services agrees to release Texas First Bank—the plaintiff in the state case 

and another creditor of Raza Services—from any claims “arising out of the 

Loan Documents.” The phrase “Loan Documents” in the agreement refers 

to three loans Texas First Bank made to Raza Services on January 17, 2013, 

which Raza Services had also defaulted on. Raza Services argues that since 

Texas First Bank had, by the time of settlement, assigned one of these loans 

to the SBA, it is unclear whether the settlement agreement releases other 

loans that the SBA made to Raza Services, or only those arising out of the 

Loan Documents. 

Case: 21-40507 Document: 00516228963 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2022
No. 21-40507

3

We find no ambiguity in the settlement agreement, and no merit in 

Raza Services’s argument. The settlement agreement only releases Raza 

Services from claims related to the three loans made by Texas First Bank on 

January 17, 2013. Nowhere is the loan at issue here—made by the SBA to 

Raza Services on December 30, 2013—mentioned in the settlement 

agreement. Nor was it ever at issue in the underlying state court litigation 

between Texas First Bank and Raza Services. There is simply nothing in the 

settlement agreement that would allow a reasonable juror to conclude that 

the agreement absolves Raza Services of liability for its default on the 

December 30, 2013 promissory note. The fact that in the agreement Raza 

Services releases Texas First Bank from any claims arising from a loan that 

Texas First Bank later assigned to the SBA has no bearing on Raza Services’s 

obligations under an entirely different loan, made directly from the SBA.

Raza Services’s counsel conceded this before the district court and there is 

nothing in the settlement agreement to suggest he was mistaken.

We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

Case: 21-40507 Document: 00516228963 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/08/2022