### The Honorab le Robert G. Renner, United States District Judge 1 

### for the District of Minnesota. ___________ No. 95-3164

___________ Gregory J. Cooke, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: March 26, 1996 Filed: April 4, 1996

___________ Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Gregory J. Cooke appeals from the district court's order denying his 1 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. We affirm.
In Februa ry 1985, the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) seized two automobiles registered to Cheryl Cooke, and tw o automobiles registere d to Gregory Cooke, as part of an investigation into Gregory's drug trafficking activities. The DEA initiated administrative forfeiture proceeding s under 21 U.S.C. § 881; it denied Cheryl's petition for remission or mitigation of the forfeiture fo r her two automobiles. No further c laims or cost bonds were filed, and all four vehicles wer e forfeited.
Gregory C ooke was subsequently convicted of numerous drug- and taxrelated offenses; the district court sentenced him to twenty-

### -2-

five years imprisonme nt without parole, a three-year special parole term, and a $100,000 fine. This court affirmed his conviction and sentence
. United States v. O'Connell , 841 F.2d 1408, 1414, 1433 (8th Cir.), cert . denied , 487 U.S. 1210 (1988), and cert. denied , 488 U.S. 1011 (1989).

In December 1994, Cooke filed the instant section 2255 motion , arguing that his conviction and sentence following the forfeitures violate d the Double Jeopardy and Excessive Fines Clauses, and that his priso n sen tence was excessive. The government responded that jeopardy did no t attach to the uncontested administrative forfeitures, as Cooke did no t assert any cognizable interest in the two vehicles registered to his wife and he had not contested the forfeiture of the other two vehicles; and tha t Cooke's challenge to his prison sentence as excessive was barred because he raised the claim in his direct criminal appeal. Cooke replied, inter alia, that, because t he cars were forfeited during his criminal trial, he could not defend the forfeiture without jeopardizing his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The district court denied relief.
The Doubl e Jeopardy Clause protects against three abuses: a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal , a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and multiple punishments for the same offense. North Carolina v. Pearce , 395 U.S. 711, 717 (1969). Before Cook e can assert that his conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, he mus t demonstrate that he was subjected to punishment in a prior proceeding. Se e Serfass v. United States , 420 U.S. 377, 393 (197 5). Because Cooke did not contest the administr ative forfeitures, he was not a party to and was not placed in jeopardy by those civil proceedings. See United States v. Sykes , 73 F.3d 772, 773-74 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Pena , 67 F.3d 153, 155-56 (8th Cir. 1995). Because Cooke was not a party to the forfeiture proceedings, there was no adverse adjudication of his culpability or a determination of his ownership

### -3-

interest in the forfe ited property. See United States v. Torres , 28 F.3d 1463, 1465-66 (7th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 669 (1994).

We also reject Cooke's argument that he risked waiver of his Fift h Amendment privilege against self-incrimination had he defended th e forfeiture action. Cf. United States v. Clementi , 70 F.3d 997, 1000 n.4 (8th C ir. 1995) (claiming ownership of property by joining forfeitur e action is not self-incriminating because statute at issue did not forbid ownership of firearms).

To asser t a violation of the Excessive Fines Clause, the defendan t bears the initial burden of showing gross disproportionality. Unite d States v. Alexander , 32 F.3d 1231, 1235 (8th Cir. 1994). We agree with th e district court that Cooke did not meet that burden.
Final ly, Cooke's claim that his twenty-five-year sentence for hi s continuing-criminal-enterprise conviction was excessive was raised an d decided a gainst him on direct appeal. O'Connell , 841 F.2d at 1425 n.9
. It canno t be relitigated in a section 2255 motion. See Dall v. Unite d States , 957 F.2d 571, 572 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
A true copy.

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