### The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United State s District Judge for 1 

### the District of Nebraska. ___________ No. 96-1338

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * * $13,000.00 in United States * Appeal from the United States Currency, * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Defendant, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Maurilio Ramirez, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 1, 1996 Filed: November 7, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
In June 1995, the government filed this civil forfeiture action under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) against the defendant currency. Maurilio Ramire z answered and filed a claim to the currency. After a bench trial, th e district court entered judgment for the government and against Ramirez , 1 and ordered the $13,000 forfeited to the government. Ramirez appeals.

Under sec tion 881(a)(6), money used in, intended for use in, o r traceable to a drug transaction is subject to fo rfeiture. In a forfeiture proceeding, the government meets its initial burden of

### Although Ramirez argues that a large percentage of th e 2 

### currency now in circulation is contaminated with narcotics r esidue, we believe the procedures employed here enhanced the reliabi lity of the drug dog’s response to the money. -2- est ablishing probable cause when its evidence creates “more than a mer e suspicion but less than prima facie proof” that the money is connected wit h drug trafficking. United States v. $91,960.00 , 897 F.2d 1457, 1462-63 (8t h Cir. 1990). The burden then shifts to the claimant to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is not connected with drug traffickin g. United States v. $39,873.00 , 80 F.3d 317, 318 (8th Cir
. 1996). We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error, but review de novo the finding of probable cause, as it involves a mixed question of law and fact. Id.

We conclude the district court’s factual findings were not clearl y erroneous, and agree that the government establi shed probable cause by the follow ing evidence. First, Ramirez had another individual purchase fo r him, with cash, a one-way plane ticket to a sour ce city. See $91,960 , 897 F.2d at 1462-63. Sec ond, Ramirez was carrying in his luggage a large sum of cash that was bound by a rubber band rather than by bank money wrappers
. See United States v. United States Currency, in Amount of $150,660.00 , 980 F.2d 1200, 1206 (8th Cir. 1993); United States v. $12,390.00 , 956 F.2d 801 , 806 (8th Cir. 1992). Third, a drug-detection dog indicated the odor o f narcotics was present on Ramirez’s luggage and on the money. See $91,960 , 2 897 F.2d at 1463. Finally, Ramirez was unable to corroborate hi s statements that he earned the money working construction. See $150,660 , 980 F.2d at 1207.

We also agree Ramirez failed to carry his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the money was not connected with drug trafficking. He had the opportunity to call witnesses or introduce other evidence corroborating his testimony, but he did

### -3-

not do so. We note that the district court’s determination of Ramirez’s credibility is virtually unassailable on appeal. See United States v
. Adipietro , 983 F.2d 1468, 1472 (8th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
A true copy.

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