Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel UBBEN, Defendant-Appellant, Navidad A. Ubben, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-08
Citations: 551 F. App'x 184
Docket Number: No. 13-10363
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel UBBEN, Defendant-Appellant, Navidad A. Ubben, Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 551
Pages: 184–185

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel UBBEN, Defendant-Appellant, Navidad A. Ubben, Appellant.
No. 13-10363
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 8, 2014.
Mattie Nell Peterson Compton, Esq., Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee. •
James Keith Mayo, Mayo Mendolia & Starr, L.L.P., Tyler, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
James Keith Mayo, for Appellant.
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In this civil action, the appellants challenge the garnishment of property by the United -States in partial satisfaction of restitution imposed on an underlying criminal conviction. Appellant Navidad Ubben claims the property was her separate properly under Texas law and that the district court failed to follow state law by refusing to hold a hearing, thus denying procedural due process.
The district court issued a short but sufficiently explanatory order, dated January 24, 2013, noting that the Ubbens had the burden "to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the garnished accounts contain separate property, which usually requires tracing of the funds" (citing United States v. Ingram, No. 4:04-CV-868-A, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2102, at *13-14 (N.D.Tex. Feb. 14, 2005)). The court concluded that "[b]eeause [the Ubbens] have not made even the slightest attempt at showing that the accounts contain separate properly and have not disputed any facts raised by the government, a hearing is not necessary and the . exemption [from garnishment] does not apply."
There is no error, and the judgment, being based on the Final Order of Garnishment, is 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.