United States v. Gene Allen Flores

Summary

The Fifth Circuit affirmed Gene Allen Flores's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2233 for forcibly rescuing a 1984 Cadillac after the Internal Revenue Service had seized it. The court held that judicial intervention and a court-ordered money judgment were not prerequisites to the seizure, rejected challenges based on technical IRS procedures and agent authority, and denied a motion to supplement the appellate record.

Holdings

1. A prior court-ordered money judgment, writ of attachment, or other judicial intervention was not required for the IRS to seize property located in a public place under the federal revenue laws.
2. For purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 2233, the seizure need only have been performed by a proper official with general authority under the tax code to make the seizure; disputes over other technical aspects of seizure legality do not negate the seizure element of the offense.
3. Flores could not invalidate his conviction based on an alleged violation of an internal IRS operating procedure where the seizure was authorized under the tax code and performed by IRS agents; in any event, the evidence supported a finding that the seizure was performed by an authorized GS-9-or-higher agent.
4. Any variance between the indictment's allegation that Agent Scott had authority and the proof concerning a GS-9-or-higher agent was not reversible error because it did not prejudice Flores's substantial rights.
5. The motion to supplement the appellate record with material from a related civil action was properly denied because appellate courts ordinarily do not enlarge the record to include material that was not before the district court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the IRS seizure of Flores's Cadillac was legally sufficient to support a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2233 without a prior court-ordered money judgment, writ of attachment, or compliance with every technical seizure requirement.
2. Whether the jury was properly instructed regarding the lawfulness of the seizure and the authority of the seizing agent.
3. Whether the alleged variance between the indictment and the trial proof concerning the seizing agent's authority required reversal.
4. Whether the appellate court should supplement the record with evidence from a related civil action.

Disposition

affirmed