Court Opinion

ID: 2966078
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:48:32.753083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:22.415335
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit

No. 98-2019

                          UNITED STATES,

                       Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                v.

    ONE 1986 MERCEDES BENZ 330E VIN WDBEA30D89A309533, ET AL.,

                     Defendants, Appellants.

           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

         [Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]

                              Before

                     Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                   and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
     Augustine A. Ahanon on brief pro se.
     Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Shelbey D.
Wright, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.

October 15, 1999

                                
                                

 
            Per Curiam.  Appellant Augustine A. Ahanon appeals
  from the district court's decision to grant the motion of the
  United States for entry of default and summary judgment in this
  civil forfeiture in rem action.  We affirm the judgment of the
  district court because Ahanon failed to raise in the district
  court the arguments he presents on appeal.  "Our law is clear
  that a party ordinarily may not raise on appeal issues that
  were not seasonably advanced (and, hence, preserved) below." 
  Daigle v. Maine Med. Ctr., Inc., 14 F.3d 684, 687 (1st Cir.
  1994).  This rule "applies with full force to constitutional
  challenges."  Id. at 688.  Appellant thus has waived his
  arguments regarding insufficient notice and the failure of the
  district court to treat his letter as the functional equivalent
  of a claim.
            Affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.