The Honorable Edward L. Filippine, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1 District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-1466

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Antoine Echols, * Eastern District of Missouri. * Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________ Submitted: December 2, 1997 Filed:

___________ Before WOLLMAN, MAGILL, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Ant oine Echols appeals from the district court & s order denying his motion fo r 1 return of administratively-forfeited property ($1,927) pursuant to Federal Rule o f Criminal Procedure 41(e). We affirm.

On Ma rch 31, 1992, St. Louis County police arrested Echols at his residenc e after a drug transaction and discovered the money in question in his pocket. The police-2-

report indicated Echols & s home address was 3938 Council Grove in Pine Lawn , Missouri. On April 29, 1992, the Dru g Enforcement Administration (DEA) seized the money. As attested by the DEA & s forfeiture counsel, on June 8, 1992, the DEA sent written notice of this seizure by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Echols at his Council Grove address, as well as to two other individuals who were deemed to have
a pote ntial interest in the money; these other individuals signed for and accepte d delivery of their notices. On June 17, June 24, and July 1, 1992, the DEA published notic e of the seizure in USA Today . The notices and publications explained th e proc edures and deadlines by which a claimant could contest an asset forfeiture; th e publications indicated the last day to file a cla im for the seized funds was July 7, 1992. On July 24, 1992, because the DEA had received no claims to the funds, the $1,92 7 was administratively forfeited to the United States.
Meanwhile, on July 9, 1992, Echols was charged b y suppressed indictment with federal drug and firearm offenses. On July 22, Echols & s federal custody commenced when he was arrested by a U.S. M arshal at the St. Louis County Jail; the record of his initial a ppearance the same day shows he gave his home address as 3938 Counci l Grov e in Pine Lawn, and he was then on probation for a prior conviction in St. Louis City. A jury later found Echols guilty as charged, and we affirmed his sentence , concluding that the district court did not clearly err in finding by a preponderance of the evidence (in calculating drug quantity) that the money in Echols & s pocket “derived from drug sa les.” See United States v. Echols , 2 F.3d 849, 849-50 (8th Cir. 1993) (pe r curiam).
In June 1995, Echols sought return of the seized property pursuant to Rule 41(e), and later asserted that he had never received notice of the forfeiture. The district court, howeve r, determined that the money had been legally forfeited. On appeal, Echol s argues the notice of seizure was not sent to his las t known address, the record does not support that the money was related to drug sales, and he re ceived ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and sentencing.-3-

We initially note that, although Echols cou ld not use Rule 41(e) to challenge the results of the completed administrative forfeiture, see In re Harper , 835 F.2d 1273 , 1274 (8th Cir . 1988), the district court had jurisdiction to consider Echols & s collateral due process attack, see United States v. Woodall , 12 F.3d 791, 793-94 & n.1 (8th Cir. 1993) (dis trict court had jurisdiction to consider claim of inadequate notice of federal administrative forfeiture). We agree with the court that the notice given here afforded Echols due process. The evidence shows the D EA sent its June 1992 written notice to the Counc il Grove address--the address Echols provided to county police upon hi s March 19 92 arrest and to the federal court at his July 22 initial appearance--an d publ ishednotice of the forfeiture action as required by statute, and Echols was no t taken into federal custody or subjected to federal prosecution until after the deadline forcont esting the forfeiture. Furthermore, Echols has neither shown that the DE A shouldhave known he was not residing at the Council Grove address, nor indicate d where he was in fact residing during the notification period. See 19 U.S.C

. §§ 1607-1609 (notice and administrative forfeiture procedural requ irements); 21 C.F.R. § 1316.75-77 (1996) (same); Madewell v. Dow ns , 68 F.3d 1030, 1047 (8th Cir. 1995) (adequate notice where plaintiff was not in federal custody or being prosecuted fo r federa loffenses, and DEA sent forfeiture notice to address plaintiff gave at time o f arrest and property seizure ; any confusion about plaintiff & s actual residence was result of his own conduct and not result of willful failure to send no tice to address DEA knew or should have known); cf. Woodall , 12 F.3d at 794-95 (inadequate notice where notice was sent to claimant during pendency of his federal criminal prosecution, district court hadordered his release on bond to different residence known to government, and no notice was m ailed to either his correct address or his attorney; where government i s incarcerating or prosecuting property owner and it elects to pursue forfei ture in separate proceeding, fundamental fairness requires that defendant or his counsel receive actual notice of forfeiture).

As fo r Echols & s other arguments, we decided in his direct criminal appeal th e district court did not clea

rly err in finding that the money derived from drug sales, and-4-

we have previouslyrefused to review the denial of Echols & s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion asserting ineffective assistance.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
A true copy.

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