Case Name: UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. ONE PARCEL OF LAND, PARCELA 22, Barrio Llanos Costa, Cabo Rojo, P.R., Defendant. Jorge L. Suarez-Maya, Claimant, Appellant. Nayda Franqui; Municipal Tax Collection Center (CRIM), Claimants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-15
Citations: 69 F. App'x 1
Docket Number: No. 02-1389
Parties: UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. ONE PARCEL OF LAND, PARCELA 22, Barrio Llanos Costa, Cabo Rojo, P.R., Defendant. Jorge L. Suarez-Maya, Claimant, Appellant. Nayda Franqui; Municipal Tax Collection Center (CRIM), Claimants.
Judges: Before BOUDIN, Chief Judge, CAMPBELL, Senior Circuit Judge, and LIPEZ, Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 69
Pages: 1–1

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. ONE PARCEL OF LAND, PARCELA 22, Barrio Llanos Costa, Cabo Rojo, P.R., Defendant. Jorge L. Suarez-Maya, Claimant, Appellant. Nayda Franqui; Municipal Tax Collection Center (CRIM), Claimants.
No. 02-1389.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
July 15, 2003.
Jorge L. Suarez-Maya on brief pro se.
Miguel A. Fernandez, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Civil Division, Jose Javier Santos Mimoso, Assistant United States Attorney, H.S. Garcia, United States Attorney, on brief, for appellee.
Before BOUDIN, Chief Judge, CAMPBELL, Senior Circuit Judge, and LIPEZ, Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Having thoroughly reviewed the record and the parties' briefs on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to dismiss the government's forfeiture claim based on claimant's delayed transfer to Puerto Rico for his first forfeiture trial. See, e.g. Young v. Gordon, 330 F.3d 76, 81 (1st Cir.2003)("dismissal should not be viewed either as a sanction of first resort or as an automatic penalty for every failure to abide by a court order."). Apart from English translations of the relevant deeds, claimant failed to adduce any new evidence to support his claim to the property on retrial. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred in declining to credit fully claimant's testimony regarding the source of the purchase money. Accordingly, the district court's forfeiture judgment is affirmed. See Local Rule 27(c).