Court Opinion

ID: 2964212
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:22:13.400555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:54.055141
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1170

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

              ONE PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY WITH BUILDINGS, APPURTENANCES,
              AND IMPROVEMENTS, KNOWN AS 154 MANLEY ROAD, LOCATED IN THE
                     TOWN OF BURRILLVILLE, RHODE ISLAND, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                       [Hon. Mary M. Lisi, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Sheldon  Whitehouse,  United  States  Attorney,   and  Michael  P.
            ___________________                                    ___________
        Iannotti,  Assistant  United  States  Attorney,  for appellant  United
        ________
        States of America.
            Ernest Barone for appellees.
            _____________

                                 ____________________

                                    July 30, 1996
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  The government appeals from a decision
                      __________

            of the  district court dismissing its  civil forfeiture claim

            as  violative of  the  Double Jeopardy  Clause  of the  Fifth

            Amendment.  United  States v.  154 Manley Rd.,  908 F.  Supp.
                        ______________     ______________

            1070,  1083 (D.R.I.  1995).   The parties  agree, and  we are

            likewise persuaded,  that the judgment below  must be vacated

            in light  of the  Supreme Court's  recent decision in  United
                                                                   ______

            States v. Ursery, 116 S. Ct. 2134 (1996) (holding that in rem
            ______    ______

            civil  forfeitures under  21 U.S.C.    881(a)(7)  are neither

            "punishment" nor criminal for purposes of the Double Jeopardy

            Clause),  and the case remanded for further proceedings.  See
                                                                      ___

            Loc. R. 27.1.

                      Vacated and remanded.
                      ____________________

                                         -2-