Court Opinion

ID: 2964426
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:25:29.836398+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:56.102950
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1795

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                  RONY E. ORELLANA,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                 [Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                         __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Rony E. Orellana on brief pro se.
            ________________
            Sheldon  Whitehouse,  United  States  Attorney, and  Stephanie  S.
            ___________________                                  _____________
        Browne, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
        ______

                                 ____________________

                                  NOVEMBER 14, 1996
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   Having read carefully  the record in  this
                 __________

            case,  including the  briefs of  the  parties, we  affirm the

            denial of  appellant Orellana's  motion for return  of seized

            property.

                 Orellana's  sole  claim argued  on  appeal  is that  the

            administrative  forfeiture of  money seized  from him  at the

            time  of his arrest violated  due process because  he did not

            receive  adequate  prior notice  of the  intended forfeiture.

            However, the record indicates  that prior notice was sent  by

            first class mail  to the detention  center in which  Orellana

            was  at the  time incarcerated.    Generally, notice  sent by

            ordinary mail to  an address at which  the intended recipient

            resides  is sufficient  to meet the  requirements of  the due

            process clause.   See Weigner v.  City of New York,  852 F.2d
                              ___ _______     ________________

            646  (2d Cir.  1988),  cert. denied,  488  U.S. 1005  (1989).
                                   _____ ______

            "[T]he  proper  inquiry  is  whether  the [government]  acted

            reasonably in  selecting the  means likely to  inform persons

            affected, not whether  each property owner  actually received

            notice."   Id. at 649; see also  United States v. Giraldo, 45
                       __          ___ ____  _____________    _______

            F.3d  509,  511  (1st  Cir.  1995).  Contrary  to  Orellana's

            suggestion,  notice  by  certified   mail  is  not  required.

            Weigner, 852  F.2d at 650-51.  Furthermore,  Orellana made no
            _______

            clear  claim below that he  did not receive  actual notice of

            the intended  forfeiture and no  allegation at  all that  the

            government  was aware that the  notice had not been received.

                                         -2-

            In  these circumstances,  we see  no error  in the  denial of

            Orellana's motion for return of his seized property.

                 Affirmed.
                 ________

                                         -3-