Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SALAM, INC., et al., Defendants, TRAVELERS EXPRESS COMPANY, INC., Claimant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-09-11
Citations: 74 F. App'x 421
Docket Number: No. 02-31114
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SALAM, INC., et al., Defendants, TRAVELERS EXPRESS COMPANY, INC., Claimant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 74
Pages: 421–422

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SALAM, INC., et al., Defendants, TRAVELERS EXPRESS COMPANY, INC., Claimant-Appellant.
No. 02-31114.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 11, 2003.
Thomas Landers Watson, Assistant US Attorney, Stephen A. Higginson, Assistant US Attorney, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ralph Shipley Whalen, Jr., New Orleans, LA, for Movant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, DEMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Travelers Express Company, Inc. (Travelers), appeals the district court's dismissal, for lack of standing, of its third-party claim to funds seized in a criminal forfeiture. The district court dismissed the claim on the Government's motion after discovery revealed that Travelers had been paid in full by the defendants on its claim and had assigned its rights to the funds in the seized bank accounts to the defendants. The defendants agreed to forfei ture of the seized funds in their plea agreements.
The record supports a determination that Travelers no longer has a facially colorable interest in the proceedings sufficient to satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement and the prudential considerations that guide the federal courts' exercise of jurisdiction. See United States v. $321,470 in U.S. Currency, 874 F.2d 298, 302 (5th Cir.1989). Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing the claim with prejudice for lack of standing.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.