* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-50180

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner-Appellee,

versus

TRACT NO. EIGHTY-ONE (81) OF SUNRISE

ACRES RECORDED IN VOLUME 2, PAGES

346-348 OF HAYS COUNTY DEED RECORDS,

HAYS COUNTY, TEXAS, ET AL.,

Respondents,

JOSE LEON GONZALEZ-LONGORIA,

Claimant-Appellant.

_______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Western District of Texas

(A-93-CV-341)

_______________________________________________________

October 21, 1996

Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
2

Jose Leon Gonzalez-Longoria appeals a judgment granting

forfeiture to the government of a tract of real estate and two

mobile homes. We affirm for the following reasons.

The government established through sworn evidence probable

cause to seize the properties. Once the government establishes

probable cause the burden shifts to the claimant to prove that

the factual predicates for forfeiture have not been met or that a

defense to forfeiture applies. United States v. 1988 Oldsmobile

Cutlass Supreme 2 Door, 983 F.2d. 670, 674 (5th Cir. 1993). In

this case the government sought forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. §

881(a)(6) (proceeds traceable to illegal drug funds) and 18

U.S.C. § 981 (property involved in or traceable to money

laundering). Gonzalez-Longoria raised no valid defense to

forfeiture. For example he made no argument and offered no

evidence, in the district court or on appeal, that the predicate

acts were committed without the knowledge or consent of the

owner. See 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6); 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(2).

Gonzalez-Longoria complains that his Fifth Amendment

privilege against self-incrimination was violated because, as “a

defendant in both a civil and criminal case,” he was forced to

“choose between waiving his privilege against self-incrimination,

or losing the civil case . . . .” He cites no compelling

authority for this proposition under the circumstances here. He
3

was tried, convicted and sentenced in the related criminal matter

before the government filed suit in this civil proceeding. 

A party seeking to challenge the government’s forfeiture of

property must demonstrate an interest in the property sufficient

to establish standing, and property may be forfeited where the

only claimant is unable or unwilling to provide evidence

supporting his assertion of an interest in the property. United

States v. $321,470.00, United States Currency, 874 F.2d 298, 303

(5th Cir. 1989). The burden of establishing standing in a

forfeiture action is on the claimant. Id. at 302. Initially, a

claimant to property that is the subject of an in rem forfeiture

proceeding must timely file a verified claim of an interest in

the property. United States v. $38,570 U.S. Currency, 950 F.2d

1108, 1113-14 (5th Cir. 1992). Gonzalez-Longoria never filed a

verified claim, and did not file his first paper in this action,

his “Fifth Amendment Property Owner, Jose Leon GonzalezLongoria’s Motion for the District Court to Dismiss Forfeiture

Proceedings Pursuant to Fifth Amendment Double Punishment

Constitutional Bar,” until over nine months after he was served

with the complaint.

We do not believe that Gonzalez-Longoria’s blanket assertion

of the privilege against self-incrimination relieved him of the

burden of pleading and establishing an ownership interest in the

property. See United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 758
4

(1983) (assertion of the privilege is not “a substitute for

evidence that would assist in meeting a burden of production,”

and does not free the party asserting privilege “from adducing

proof in support of a burden which would otherwise have been

his.”); United States v. Little Al, 712 F.2d 133, 135 (5th Cir.

1983) (blanket assertion of privilege against self-incrimination

does not relieve party’s burden of controverting government’s

affidavits in forfeiture action).

Moreover, even if the assertion of the Fifth Amendment

privilege relieved Gonzalez-Longoria of what otherwise would have

been his burden of showing an ownership interest in the property,

this claim of privilege at most grants him standing. Even if we

confer standing on Gonzalez-Longoria, the government was

nevertheless entitled to forfeiture, since it established

probable cause and Gonzalez-Longoria failed to plead or offer any

evidence of a valid defense to the forfeiture on the merits.

Gonzalez-Longoria claims that the civil action constitutes

double jeopardy in light of the prior criminal proceeding. This

argument was rejected in United States v. Ursery, 116 S. Ct. 2135

(1996), which held that civil in rem forfeitures under §§ 881 and

981 -- the same forfeiture statutes at issue in our case -- are

not “punishment” under the Double Jeopardy Clause and hence do

not constitute double jeopardy.
5

Gonzalez-Longoria claims that the government violated FED R.

CRIM. P. 7, which concerns pleading requirements for indictments

seeking criminal forfeiture. There is no merit to this argument. 

The government brought a separate civil forfeiture action here

which is not subject to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,

as it was allowed to do under the civil statutes discussed above.

AFFIRMED.