* This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 7/29/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

___________________________________ ARNULFO CHAPA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellees. No. 96-1071 (D.C. No. 95-M-1533) (D. Colorado)

___________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

___________________________________ Before BRORBY, EBEL and HENRY , Circuit Judges.

___________________________________ After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Arnulfo Chapa, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se , appeals the dismissal of his civil action to recover property administrat ively forfeited to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. We grant the parties' mot ions to supplement the record on appeal and affirm.
In his complaint, Mr. Chapa alleged he did not rece ive sufficient notice of the forfeiture proceeding, as required under 19 U.S .C. § 1607 (notice must be published for three consecutive weeks) and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The government moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on the ground Mr. Chapa was collat erally estopped from asserting he received inadequate notice in light of a prior j udgment entered against him in the United States District Court for the Western Di strict of Texas. The district court agreed and dismissed Mr. Chapa's claim with p rejudice. The district court also denied Mr. Chapa's motion to file an amended c omplaint.
Mr. Chapa now contends the district court erred in concluding his action was barred by collateral estoppel. We disagree. O n or about July 18, 1994, Mr. Chapa filed a motion for return of seized property pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e). United States v. Chapa , No. A-91-CR-159(2) JN (W.D. Tex.). In his memorandum in support of the motion, Mr. Chapa cont ended he received-3-

inadequate notice of the forfeiture proceedings. A fter receiving a response from the government, Judge James R. Nowlin of the UnitedStates District Court for the Western District of Texas denied the motion and concluded "the currency was properly forfeited in accordance with the applicabl e administrative forfeiture proceedings." The claim Mr. Chapa raised in the in stant action is identical to the claim he raised in his earlier action in Texas. We therefore agree that Mr. Chapa is barred by collateral estoppel from relitigating that issue.
Mr. Chapa also contends the district court abused i ts discretion when it denied his motion for leave to file an amended comp laint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Again, we disagree. Mr. Chapa sought to include a claim that the administrative forfeiture violated his rights underthe double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. Even if we assume for the sak e of discussion the district court abused its discretion, it would be futile to remand the case to allow Mr. Chapa to proceed on the merits of his double jeopar dy claim. The United States Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Ursery , ___ S. Ct. ___, 1996-4-

WL 340815 (June 24, 1996), makes it clear his doubl e jeopardy claim lacks merit.

AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court : WADE BRORBY United States Circuit Judge