Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Houston law firm Ramey, L.L.P., formerly known as Ramey & Schwaller, L.L.P., obtained a government-backed Paycheck Protection Program loan from Amegy Bank during the COVID-19 pandemic. After learning of a pending criminal complaint against the firm’s owner, William P. Ramey III, the bank determined that he had falsely answered the application’s criminal-history question, accelerated the loan, and froze the firm’s accounts. The Small Business Administration subsequently found the firm ineligible for PPP loans and loan forgiveness. The Fifth Circuit had upheld the bank’s and SBA’s actions in a separate proceeding.
In this action, Ramey sought judicial review of the SBA’s denial of its applications for a First Draw PPP loan, a Second Draw PPP loan, and loan forgiveness, as well as monetary damages. The district court granted the SBA’s motion to dismiss but initially offered only a limited explanation. The Fifth Circuit ordered a limited remand, after which the district court issued a written statement of reasons in May 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Ramey’s claims. In a brief, unpublished per curiam opinion, the panel stated that it had carefully reviewed the record, the parties’ briefing, and the district court’s written explanation.
The panel adopted substantially the same reasons given by the district court. It did not separately analyze Ramey’s arguments that the district court had read the circuit’s earlier decision too broadly or that the SBA had failed to consider relevant factors when denying loan forgiveness.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth Circuit left intact the dismissal of Ramey’s claims challenging the SBA’s PPP eligibility and loan-forgiveness decisions.
- The panel affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in the district court’s post-remand written order.
- The opinion is unpublished and does not provide an independent, detailed analysis of the jurisdictional or merits grounds for dismissal.
Why It Matters
The decision ends this appeal without disturbing the SBA’s determination that Ramey was ineligible for PPP assistance and forgiveness. Its practical reach is limited because the panel issued an unpublished opinion and relied on the district court’s reasoning rather than developing a separate appellate analysis.