* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has deter mined that this

opinion s h ould not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 96-50913

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

OTONIEL DE JESUS MUNOZ-MORA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas

(EP-95-CR-616-1)
June 13, 1997

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Otoniel Munoz-Mora was arrested for importation and possession

of twenty-six pounds of cocaine. At the time of the arrest, United

States Customs Service agents seized various perso nal items and

currency from Munoz. Munoz pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine

with intent to distribute, and he was subsequently sentenced to a

term of imprisonment of fifty-two months.

Several months after he was sentenced, Munoz filed a pleading

entitled “RETURN OF ALL PROPERTY,” in which he sought the return,-2-

pursuant to Rule 41(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,

of currency and a number of property items, including a resident

card and a Colombian passport. Munoz argued that the United States

currency the government seized was from the sale of his personal

car. The government responded that the currency was the proceeds

of drug trafficking and Munoz had forfeited it under 18 U.S.C.

§ 981 and vario us accompanying provisions. The government also

asserted that it had forwarded Munoz’s resident card and passport

to the Immigration and Naturalization Service to be used as

evidence in a depo rtation or exclusion proceeding, and sent his

remaining property to his counsel’s office. Finally, the

government co ntended that Munoz had failed to pursue his

administrative remedi es during the forfeiture proceedings. The

dist rict court agreed with the government. It denied Munoz’s

motion and dismissed his claims. Munoz wishes to appeal the

district court judgment, and seeks leave from this court to proceed

in forma pauperis (“i.f.p.”).

Bec ause Munoz has received all the personal items the

government seized to which he is entitled, we need only consider

the currency the government confiscated and forfeited. The

government avers that it followed all applica ble procedural

requirements for an administrative forfeiture of this money. Munoz

does not disagree. Indeed, Munoz concedes in his appellate brief

that he received three notifications from the government regarding

the possible forfeiture of the seized currency and he turned all of-3-

these over to his c ounsel. Neither Munoz nor his counsel ever

contested the forfeiture action.

Once an administrative for feiture is completed, we lack

subject matt er jurisdiction to review the forfeiture except for

failure to comply with procedural requirements or to comport with

due process. United States v. Schinnell , 80 F.3d 1064, 1069 (5th

Cir. 1996). Since there is no indication that the government did

not follow the applicable procedural standards for administrative

forfeitures or that it violated Munoz’s due process rights, it is

clear that we lack subject matter jurisdiction over Munoz’s appeal.

Therefore, we need not consider Munoz’s i.f.p. application.

APPEAL DISMISSED, I.F.P. APPLICATION DISMISSED.