Court Opinion

ID: 2961645
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 20:45:42.781628+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:21.663723
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          December 9, 1992                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 92-1011                                     UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                         ONE PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY WITH THE                      BUILDING, APPURTENANCES, AND IMPROVEMENTS                   KNOWN AS 752 BARK STREET, SWANSEA, MA., ET AL.,                                Defendants-Appellants.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                       [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]                                           ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Marilyn M. Marciarelli on brief pro se.            ______________________            A.  John  Pappalardo,  United  States  Attorney,  and  Laurie   J.            ____________________                                   ___________        Sartorio, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.        ________                                 ____________________                                 ____________________        district  court judgment of civil  forfeiture entered in  favor of the                 Per Curiam.   Appellant, Marilyn Marciarelli, has appealed  a                 __________        has  failed to  order  the trial  transcripts.   Valedon  Martinez  v.                                                         _________________        appellant's contentions of district  court error, however, because she        government after a two-day trial.  We can give no meaningful review of        Hospital Presbiteriano de la Comunidad, Inc., 806 F.2d 1128, 1135 (1st        ____________________________________________        1358 (1st Cir. 1985); Fed. R. App. 10(b).  On the record before us, we        counsel  claim could arise from a civil forfeiture proceeding, but cf.                                                                       _______                 Similarly,  even assuming  that an  ineffective assistance of        United States v. $250,000 in United States Currency, 808 F.2d 895, 900        _____________    __________________________________        discern neither error nor abuse of discretion.        without  the   full  range   of  constitutional   protections  usually        (1st Cir. 1987) (forfeiture statutes are predominantly civil in nature        Cir. 1986); Muniz  Ramirez v. Puerto Rico Fire  Servs., 757 F.2d 1357,                    ______________    ________________________        associated with  criminal sanctions), we  have no basis  for reviewing                 Accordingly, the district court judgment is affirmed.                                                             _________        appellant's complaints as to her trial counsel's conduct.