* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Nos. 95-10274, 95-10275, 95-10304, 95-10305

Consolidated

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

TOMMY ROSS ANDERSON, SARAH JANE ANDERSON,

JERRY WAYNE TILLEY, and SUSAN WELLS TILLEY,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeals from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(3:92-CR-417-G)

July 24, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Tommy Ross Anderson, Sarah Jane Anderson, Jerry Wayne Tilley

and Susan Wells Tilley raise double jeopardy claims regarding their

drug convictions and related forfeitures. We affirm.2 FACTS

Beginning in 1986, Tommy and Sarah Anderson, along with Jerry

and Susan Tilley, engaged in the distribution and sale of large

quantities of mari juana. The marijuana was stored at various

locations including the Andersons’ home and the Tilleys’ home, both

in Dallas.

On July 25, 1991, the Government filed in rem a complaint for

forfeiture of property belonging to the Tilleys pursuant to 21

U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) and (7 ). On January 13, 1992, the Government

amended the complaint to include property owned by the Andersons.

The complaint alleged that the various pieces of property were

subject to forfeiture because th ey were used to facilitate drug

trafficking, were proceeds from the sale of drugs, or were

traceable to such proceeds. The Andersons answered and filed a

claim for seized property. The Andersons and Tilleys subsequently

entered into a Stipulated Forfeiture of certain personal and real

property. The stipulation further provided for the release and

return to the Andersons and Tilleys of other property. The

district court accordingly entered an order forfeiting the

specified properties on February 9, 1993. The district court

stayed the forfeiture proceedings with respect to the defendants’

homes pending the outcome of the criminal trial.

Contemporaneously with the forfeiture proceedings, on October

8, 1992, the Andersons and Tilleys were indicted on various drug

offenses. The indictment was based on the same acts that gave rise

to the civil forfeiture proceeding. On April 7, 1993, the3

Andersons and Tilleys moved to di smiss the indictment on the

grounds of double jeopardy, alleging that the civil forfeiture

proceeding had already punished them for the drug trafficking. The

district court denied the motion to dismiss. On interlocutory

appeal, we affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss in United

States v. Tilley

, 18 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied

, 115 S.

Ct. 574 (1994).

Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Appellants moved to withdraw

their claims to their residences. In addition, the plea agreement

p rovided that they preserved their right to further appeal th eir

double jeopardy claim. The district court granted the Appellants’

motio n to withdraw their claims in the forfeiture proceeding and

entered the corresponding order on January 17, 1995. Final

judgments of conviction and sentence were entered as to all

Appellants on March 14, 1995.

On March 16, 1995, the Government moved for final judgment of

forfeiture of the Andersons’ and Tilleys’ respective resi dences,

which the district court granted.

DISCUSSION

It is unclear from the record which provision, § 881(a)(6) or

§ 881(a)(7), the government used to seize the Appellants’

properties. The appellants assert that civil forfeitures pursuant

to either § 881(a)(6) or § 881(a)(7) constitute punishment for the

purpose of double jeopardy. Under our prior decision in U nited

States v. Tilley

, property forfeited under § 881(a)(6) as drug

proceeds does not constitute punishment. Id. at 299. Subsequent4

to oral argument in these cases, the Supreme Court resolved any

remaining uncertainty about the double j eopardy implications of

civil forfeiture: “These civil forf eitures [pursuant to §

881(a)(7)] (and civil forfeitures generally), we hold, do not

constitute ‘punishment’ for pu rposes of the Double Jeopardy

Clause.” U

nited States v. Ursery, 1996 WL 340815 (U.S.)(1996). We

find that Urs ery controls this case, and therefore affirm the

judgments and sentences.

AFFIRMED.