Court Opinion

ID: 2964947
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:33:18.493953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:55.643103
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1244

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                          v.

                             ASSORTED PIECES OF JEWELRY,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                                 
                                     ____________

                                RAMON TORRES-GONZALEZ,

                                 Claimant, Appellant.
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                   [Hon. Daniel R. Dominguez, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Ramon Torres-Gonzalez on brief pro se.
            _____________________
            Guillermo Gil,  United States Attorney,  and Jacqueline  D. Novas,
            _____________                                ____________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   October 14, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  Claimant Ramon Torres-Gonzalez appeals from

            a  district court  judgment  directing  that  four  items  of

            jewelry   be  forfeited  as   proceeds  of  his  drug-related

            activity.  See 21 U.S.C.    881(a)(6).  As claimant concedes,
                       ___

            the  sole issue squarely presented below--that the forfeiture

            proceeding  constituted   a  second  form  of  punishment  in

            violation  of double  jeopardy--is now  defunct  in light  of

            United States  v. Ursery,  116 S.  Ct. 2135  (1996).   He has
            _____________     ______

            accordingly shifted gears on appeal and advanced a variety of

            arguments involving, inter  alia, due process and  the Fourth
                                 ___________

            Amendment. 

                 None of these contentions is properly before us.   While

            claimant   is  correct  that   several  were  set   forth  as

            affirmative defenses  below, they  were never  pursued.   The

            number of claims was narrowed  at the November 8, 1995 status

            conference.   And in  response to the  court's directive that

            those  remaining  issues  be  briefed,  claimant submitted  a

            pleading  confined to  his  double-jeopardy contention.   All

            other  claims, including those he now presses on appeal, were

            thereby waived. 

                 A  review of  claimant's arguments  reveals  them to  be

            without merit in  any event.  Absent any  allegation that the

            forfeiture action was filed outside the applicable statute of

            limitations,  his complaints of  administrative delay fail in

            light  of United States  v. James Daniel  Good Real Property,
                      _____________     ________________________________

                                         -2-

            510  U.S. 43, 62-65  (1993).  His  Fourth Amendment argument,

            even if  not waived  as a  result of  his plea agreement,  is

            negated  by  the uncontested  facts  on record.    His prompt

            response  to the  forfeiture complaint  belies  any claim  of

            inadequate  notice.  To the extent  claimant is disputing the

            existence  of   probable  cause   for  the  forfeiture,   the

            government's pleadings  established an ample  basis therefor.

            See, e.g.,  Dock. #  19.  Finally,  the district  court acted
            ___  ____

            well within its  discretion in declining to  review arguments

            advanced  for the first time in claimant's Rule 59(e) motion.

            See,  e.g., Jorge  Rivera  Surillo &  Co.  v. Falconer  Glass
            ___   ____  _____________________________     _______________

            Indus.,  37 F.3d  25,  28-29  (1st  Cir. 1994);  Williams  v.
            ______                                           ________

            Poulos, 11 F.3d 271, 289 (1st Cir. 1993).  
            ______

                 Affirmed.
                 _________

                                         -3-