IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40797

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE MANUEL GONZALEZ,

Defendant

v.

LAURIE TORRES,

Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:06-CR-329-4

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Laurie Torres appeals the dismissal of her third-party petition asserting 

a legal interest in a property in Hunt County, Texas, that was the subject of a 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 13, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-40797 Document: 00512968392 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/13/2015
No. 14-40797

preliminary order of forfeiture in the criminal case against Jose Manual 

Gonzalez.1 Torres, who claims to be Gonzalez’s common law spouse, contends 

that her petition stated a claim for relief under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Federal 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2 because the presentence report (PSR) showed 

that her husband’s drug trafficking conspiracy began after they purchased the 

property in July 1998. She thus argues that her own interest in the property 

vested before the Government’s interest under the “relation back” doctrine in 

§ 853(c). She acknowledges that, according to the indictment, the offense 

began in January 1998, but she argues that the PSR’s description of the offense 

should control. She does not acknowledge Gonzalez’s admission in the agreed 

preliminary order of forfeiture that the property was purchased with the 

proceeds of the drug trafficking conspiracy.

We apply de novo review to the district court’s dismissal for failure to 

state a claim, taking all of Torres’s allegations in the petition as true. See 

United States v. Alvarez, 710 F.3d 565, 567 (5th Cir. 2013). The dismissal will 

be “affirmed only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of 

facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” Id. (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted).

Contrary to Torres’s claim, the PSR confirms that Gonzalez was engaged 

in the drug trafficking conspiracy in July 1998 when the property was 

purchased. It is indisputable that the Government’s interest vested at the time 

of the offense under the relation back doctrine. See § 853(c); United States v. 

Corpus, 491 F.3d 205, 209 (5th Cir. 2007). Torres’s argument that the PSR 

established the priority of her interest over the Government’s is unavailing. 

1 Although the notice of appeal also references the final judgment of forfeiture against 

a second property located in Rockwall County, Torres abandons her appeal of that judgment 

by failing to address the forfeiture of that property. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy 

Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

2

 

 Case: 14-40797 Document: 00512968392 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/13/2015
No. 14-40797

Torres also contends that, because she is Gonzalez’s common law spouse, 

the property is community property and not amenable to forfeiture. This claim 

also fails under the application of the relation back doctrine. As discussed 

above, the Government’s interest in the property vested at the time of 

Gonzalez’s offense, which began before the couple purchased the property. 

Accordingly, the property never became the community property of Torres and 

Gonzalez. See United States v. Martinez, 228 F.3d 587, 590 (5th Cir. 2000) 

(interpreting an identical relation back provision in the RICO forfeiture 

statute). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 14-40797 Document: 00512968392 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/13/2015