### 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 d ismissal of her third

- party petition asserting a legal interest in a property in Hunt County, Texas, that was the s ubject of a

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. 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: 03/13/2015No. 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 Proced ure 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 t he “ 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 p etition 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 Torre s ’s claim, the PSR confirms t hat Gonzalez was engaged in the drug trafficking conspiracy in July 1998 when the property was purchased . It is indisputable that the Government’s interest ves ted 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
establish ed the priority of her interest over the Government’s is unavailing.

1 Although the notice of app eal 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 Abne r , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

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

- 40797

Torr es 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 interes t 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