*Local rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that have no precedential value

and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession.” Pursuant to that Rule,

the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 94-20807

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ESTEBAN AVECHE PALACIOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(CR-H-94-60)

November 24, 1995

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, GARWOOD and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

POLITZ, Chief Judge:*

Esteban Aveche Palacios makes this interlocutory appeal of the denial of his double

jeopardy plea, urging the civilforfeiture of an automobile as a barto his criminal prosecution

for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. For

the reasons assigned, we affirm.

Background
 

1The indictment of Esteban Aveche Palacios refers to his many aliases, including Luis

SantanaColon, Luis Angel Colon, Victor ManuelRivera, TommyCreel, Pedro IvanBlanco,

Mike, Mayimbe, andLucho. At his rearraignment hearing, Palacios and his attorney said his

last name wasspelled “Areche-Palacio.” However, Palacios’ brief states that his true name

is “Estaben Aveche Palacios.”

 

2The notice stated that the seizure was based on the automobile’s use to facilitate the

transportation, sale, receipt, possession, or concealment of a controlled substance, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4).

 

3Summary forfeiture can be used when no claimisfiled or bond given within the statutory

time period. 19 U.S.C. § 1609; 21 C.F.R. §§ 1316.71-1316.81.

2

Palacios was arrested under the name “Luis Colon”1and subsequently indicted.

During his arrest, Palacios was served with a notice of seizure of the Honda Accord

automobile in his possession.2 Although the notice explained that a claim could be filed in

the forfeiture proceedings, no claim was made and there was no contest to the forfeiture.

The automobile was forfeited to the government by default.3

Palacios filed a “plea in bar to prosecution,” contending that the forfeiture of the

automobile constituted punishmentwhich prohibited, as double jeopardy, his prosecutionfor

conspiracy. He attached to his plea a copy of the notice of seizure with which he had been

served. The government opposed Palacios’ plea, contending that jeopardy did not attach

from the administrative forfeiture because Palacios neither filed a claim nor entered the

forfeiture as a party.

The district court denied Palacios’ plea, finding that the titleholder of the vehicle was

“Luis A. Colon,” that no claim was filed in the forfeiture proceeding, and that the vehicle

was forfeited by default. The court found that because he did not participate in the prior

proceeding, Palacios did not face double jeopardy.

Palacios moved for reconsideration and a hearing to show that he was the owner and

lost the automobile through forfeiture. He maintained that he did not file a claim in the
 

4Subsequent to noticing the appeal Palacios was sentenced.

 

5U.S. Const. amend. V (“[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offense to be

twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . . .”); North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89

S.Ct. 2072, 2076 (1969).

 

6Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 97 S.Ct. 2034 (1977).

 

7United States v. Gonzales, 40 F.3d 735 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1716

(1995).

3

forfeiture proceeding for fear of waiving his right against self-incrimination in the criminal

proceeding. He attached to his motion copies of the vehicle’s certificate of title and an

applicationfor certificateoftitle indicatingthat the vehicle’s owner was “LuisAngelColon.”

The district court denied the motion, but found that Palacios had filed a claim and entered

into a consent judgment of forfeiture. Palacios timely appealed.

Subsequently, pursuant to a plea agreement, Palacios pleaded guilty to the conspiracy

charge while maintaining his intent to appeal the double jeopardy issue.4

Analysis

The double jeopardy clause prohibits the government from multiple prosecutions or

punishments of the same individual for the same offense.5 We have jurisdiction over an

interlocutory appeal from a denial of a double jeopardy claim.6 That denial is subject to de

novo review.7

In its order denying Palacios’ motion for reconsideration, the district courtstated that

Palacios filed a claim and entered into a settlement with the government in the forfeiture

proceeding. Palacios conceded in his appellate brief that this was error; he made no claim

or appearance in the forfeiture proceeding. We find no evidence in the record that he made

a claim, and indeed, in its original order denying Palacios’ plea in bar to prosecution, the

district court had found that Palacios was not a party to the forfeiture proceeding. We must
 

8

60 F.3d 188 (5th Cir. 1995).

 

9

Id. at 192 (citations omitted).

4

conclude from our review of the record that no one entered a claim in the administrative

forfeiture and that the automobile was forfeited to the government by default.

Palacios contends that his criminal prosecution is barred by the double jeopardy

clause because he previously was punished for the same offense by the administrative

forfeiture of the automobile that was in his possession at the time of his arrest. Palacios’

argumentisforeclosed by ourrecent decision in United States v. Arreola-Ramos.

8

 Because

Palacios failed to enter a claim in the administrative forfeiture proceedings, he was not a

party to any prior proceeding. “[A] summary forfeiture, by definition, can never serve as a

jeopardy component of a double jeopardy motion. In summary forfeiture proceedings, there

is no trial, there are no parties, and no one is punished. Absent a trial, a party, and a

punishment, jeopardy can never attach.”9

An uncontested administrative forfeiture is not former jeopardy. Thus, Palacios’

criminal prosecution did not constitute double jeopardy.

AFFIRMED.