### The Honorab le H. Franklin Waters, Chief Judge, United States 1 

### District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. ___________ No. 95-2723

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * * One Square Acre of Land * Appeal from the United States Located in Washington County, * District Court for the Arkansas, With All Appurtenances* Western District of Arkansas and Improvements Thereon, * * {UNPUBLISHED} Defendant, * * Tom Brown, * *

Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 27, 1996 Filed: June 11, 1996

___________ Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________
PER CURIAM. Thomas F. Brown appeals f rom a final judgment of the District Court 1 for the Western District of Arkansas dismissing the United States' civil forfeiture action based on its conclusion that any forfeiture could b e pursuedin the previous criminal forfeiture proceeding. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

### -2- Brown was the owner of forty acres o f land. In February 1994, Brown conveyedby quitclaim deed a one-acre parcel to "Our Church." After law enforcement officials seized marijuana and peyote growing on the property in August 1994, Brownwas charged with, and a jury subsequently convicted him of, manufacturing marijuana and peyote. The jury also found Brown had used his entire forty -acre tract to facilitate the manufacturing process, thus subj ecting the property to forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 853. Thi s court affirmed. United States v. Brown , 72 F.3d 134 (8th Cir. 1995 ) (Table), cert . denied , 116 S. Ct. 1581 (1996). The final order o f forfei ture excepted from the legal description the one acre purportedl y deeded to Our Church, the record title owner.
The government then instituted the instant civil forfeitur e proceeding under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7) to recover the single acre deeded to Our Church. Brown answered the complaint, an d the government moved for summar yjudgment. The district court dismissed the civil forfeitur e action, concluding that the conveyance to Our Church was invalid unde r Arkansas law; that Brown had retained legal title to the remaining acre; that the jury's finding with respect to the criminal forfeiture count of the indictment applied to Brown's interest in the one acre; and that the United St ates thus could pursue forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 853 in th e criminal proceeding. Brown appeals, arguing the district court erred in "invalidatin g" the tra nsfer of title to Our Church without first considering the Religiou s Freedom Restoration A ct of 1993 (RFRA), because testimony at the criminal trial proved the deedto the church was accepted by a duly elected county official, and because the district court had pre viously found the transfer valid. Br own also argues the forfeiture constituted an act of doubl e jeopardy and an excessive fine. Brown's arguments for reversal are without merit. First, the

### -3-

district court did not need to consider the RFRA or double jeopardy claims because the court dismissed the civil action. S econd, under Arkansas law, an unincorporated ass ociation cannot acquire and hold property in its own name. Fausett & Co. v. Bogard , 685 S.W.2d 153, 155 (Ark. 1985); Lael v. Crook , 97 S.W.2d 436, 439 (Ark. 1936) (conveyance to an unincorporate d association is invalid and does not pass legal t itle). We thus agree with the distr ict court that Brown had retained title to the single acre, n o title impediments existed to forfeiture under section 853, and th e government could proceed through criminal forfei ture proceedings. We note that Brown could raise any claims of double jeopardy and excessive fines in such a proceeding. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.