IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10851

Summary Calendar

RICHARD A CHICHAKLI

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

ADAM SZUBIN, Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control of the United

States Department of the Treasury, in his official capacity; JOHN SNOW,

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, in his official capacity;

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, in her

official capacity; OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

Before STEWART, OWEN and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

LESLIE H. SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff-appellant Richard Chichakli challenged a “Blocking Notice”

issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). He asserts the Blocking

Notice was unconstitutional and the evidence was insufficient to support entry

of the Notice against him. The district court granted summary judgment on all

claims in favor of Defendants. We affirm the district court except for the ruling

regarding a taking. We vacate that part of the judgment, as explained below.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 26, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-10851

2

In July 2004, President Bush issued Executive Order 13348, which

declared a national emergency with respect to Liberia. Important for purposes

of this appeal, the Executive Order authorized the freezing of the assets of 28

individuals who were deemed to be contributing to the unstable situation in

Liberia as well as anyone found “acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of,

directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are

blocked pursuant to this order.” Viktor Bout was one of the individuals

specifically listed in the Order. After an investigation, OFAC determined that

Appellant Chichakli was acting on behalf of Bout. A Blocking Notice was issued,

subjecting Chichakli to the sanctions set out in the Executive Order. After

OFAC denied reconsideration of the denial, Chichakli filed this suit, asserting

violations of his due process rights, of the Takings Clause, and of the

Administrative Procedures Act.

We review the district court’s summary judgment de novo, applying the

same test as the district court. XL Specialty Ins. Co. v. Kiewit Offshore Servs.,

Ltd., 513 F.3d 146, 148 (5th Cir. 2008). Therefore, judgment is properly entered

if the summary judgment record shows that there is no material fact issue and

that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

We consider each of Chichakli’s claims. The first is an alleged violation of

Fifth Amendment due process rights. Chichakli argues that he was entitled to

notice and a hearing before the government froze his assets. The due process

clause generally requires notice and a hearing prior to a constitutional

deprivation, yet“procedural due process is a flexible concept whose contours are

shaped by the nature of the individual’s and the state interests in a particular

deprivation.” Patel v. Midland Mem’l Hosp. and Med. Ctr., 298 F.3d 333, 339

(5th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). A post-deprivation process will suffice in

exigent circumstances. Beck v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 759, 761 (5th Cir. 1988). 
No. 07-10851

3

The district court held (1) that the pre-notice deprivation was necessary

to secure an important government interest as demonstrated by the Executive

Order that declared conditions in Liberia to be a serious threat to the foreign

policy of the United States, (2) that there was a special need for prompt action

to protect against the transfer of the assets that were subject to the Executive

Order, and (3) that the Executive Order narrowly set out the criteria that the

Treasury Department could use to identify affected individuals to ensure that

the deprivation was not baseless. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys. v. DLG,

29 F.3d 993, 1001 (5th Cir. 1994). Because of the need for prompt action in these

circumstances, and the availability of post-deprivation avenues to challenge the

deprivation, there were exigent circumstances justifying the holding of a hearing

only after Chichakli’s assets were frozen.

Chichakli’s second claim is that the Government’s actions in freezing his

assets constituted an unconstitutionaltaking without compensation in violation

of the Fifth Amendment. The district court held that OFAC’s blocking action

was not a taking within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment because title to

the property never vested in the government. 

On appeal, the Government suggests we vacate this part of the order

because the district court lacked jurisdiction. The Government points out that

the Tucker Act grants the Court of Federal Claims exclusive jurisdiction over

takings claims against the United States that seek monetary damages in excess

of $10,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2). To the extent Chichakli seeks damages

greater than $10,000, the Government is correct. Paradissiotis v. Rubin, 171

F.3d 983, 989 (5th Cir. 1999). 

It is not clear from the face of the Complaint that Chichakli is seeking

greater than $10,000 in damages. Nonetheless, Chichakli alleged that the

blocking order had the effect of destroying his business, freezing all of his

accounts, depriving him of his automobile, and preventing use and collection of
No. 07-10851

4

rents from rental property for over two years. These allegations, along with

Chichakli’s failure to dispute the Government’s allegation that his claim is in

excess of $10,000, justify a finding that his claim is for more than $10,000. It

therefore falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims.

Because the district court did not have jurisdiction to decide this issue, we

vacate the district court’s judgment as it relates to Chichakli’s takings claim

under the Fifth Amendment. 

Chichakli’s final challenge is to the sufficiency of the evidence that he was

purporting to act on behalf of Viktor Bout. We review OFAC’s designation of

him as someone who was assisting Bout for whether the determination was

“arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance

with law.” Kinder Canal Co., Inc. v. Johanns, 493 F.3d 543, 547 (5th Cir. 2007).

Chichakli’s specific challenge is to the relevance and reliability of certain

information utilized by OFAC to justify the blocking order. The district court

pointed outthatthe evidence supports the conclusions that Chichakli held senior

level positions in several businesses connected with Bout, that Chichakli had a

close relationship with Bout, and that he had intimate knowledge of Bout’s

businesses. Therefore, the district court correctly held that OFAC did not act in

an arbitrary and capricious manner in determining that Chichakli acted for or

on behalf of Viktor Bout. 

AFFIRMED in part and VACATED in part.