Case: 24-20376 Document: 48-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/27/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 24-20376 FILED May 27, 2025 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Rowland Marcus Andrade; ABTC Corporation, Plaintiffs—Appellants, versus Internal Revenue Service, Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:24-MC-248 ______________________________ Before Jones, Dennis, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Plaintiff-Appellants ABTC Corporation (“ABTC”) and Rowland Marcus Andrade, ABTC’s president and owner, appeal the district court’s order denying their motion to quash two sets of summonses issued by the Defendant-Appellee Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to third-party banks.

Plaintiff-Appellants filed their motion to quash below pursuant to the _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-20376 Document: 48-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/27/2025

No. 24-20376

Customer Challenge provisions of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (“RFPA”).

When, as here, a government authority like the IRS seeks to subpoena a customer’s records from a financial institution, that customer may challenge that subpoena under 12 U.S.C. § 3410(a). That same statute provides that “[a] court ruling denying a motion or application under this section shall not be deemed a final order and no interlocutory appeal may be taken therefrom by the customer.” 12 U.S.C. § 3410(d). A customer may only appeal the denial of a motion to quash “as part of any appeal from a final order in any legal proceeding initiated against him arising out of or based upon the financial records,” or “within thirty days after a notification that no legal proceeding is contemplated against him.” Id. Neither has occurred here. Accordingly, the district court’s denial of the motion to quash below was not a final, appealable order under § 3410(d), and we lack appellate jurisdiction to hear this appeal. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We DISMISS for want of jurisdiction.