United States v. Williams

Case: 25-20577 Document: 67-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/11/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

____________ United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit No. 25-20577 FILED

September 11, 2026

Summary Calendar

____________ Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Huey P. Williams, Jr.,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:14-CR-22-1

______________________________

Before King, Higginson, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

In 2015, a jury convicted Huey P. Williams, Jr., of one count of aiding and abetting healthcare fraud. Prior to his sentencing hearing, the district court imposed a personal money judgment against him in the amount of $1,969,498.36. See 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(7). His judgment of conviction and sentence was affirmed on appeal. In 2025, the district court ordered the Case: 25-20577 Document: 67-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/11/2026

No. 25-20577 forfeiture of two real properties owned by Williams to satisfy the outstanding money judgment.

Williams now appeals from the district court’s order for forfeiture of substitute assets. We “review the district court’s findings of fact pertaining to a forfeiture order under the clearly erroneous standard, and the question of whether those facts constitute legally proper forfeiture de novo.” United States v. Ayika, 837 F.3d 460, 468-69 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks, citation, and italics omitted).

First, Williams argues that the substitution order is invalid because the district court did not impose forfeiture in the initial judgment and was barred from amending his sentence 10 years after it became final to add a forfeiture order. He contends that the money judgment did not become effective because the district court failed to pronounce it at sentencing and include it in the written judgment. See United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551, 556-58 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc). However, he is incorrect; the district court followed the proper procedures in this case. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(4). Thus, the money judgment constituted a preliminary order of forfeiture that became final at Williams’s sentencing hearing, and the district court retained the authority to order the forfeiture of substitute assets to satisfy the money judgment. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(4)(A), (e). Further, the district court complied with due process by giving Williams a sufficient opportunity to object to the money judgment. See Diggles, 957 F.3d at 558.

Williams also challenges the procedures underlying the substitution order, arguing that it violated third-party interests and his due process right to notice. Despite his contentions, the lack of consideration of third-party interests did not affect the district court’s ability to enter the order. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2)(A), (e)(2)(B). Further, because the Government Case: 25-20577 Document: 67-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/11/2026

No. 25-20577 sent notice through certified and first-class mail to Williams’s known residence, the notice was reasonably calculated to reach Williams and to provide him with “notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 167 (2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see id. at 168-70; United States v. Robinson, 434 F.3d 357, 366 (5th Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED.