Court Opinion

ID: 2964862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:32:20.610957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:12:04.341318
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1220

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                          v.

                ONE 1989 23 FT. WELLCRAFT MOTOR VESSEL, ETC., ET AL.,

                                     Defendants.
                                ______________________

                              EUSEBIO ESCOBAR-DE-JESUS,

                                Intervenor, Appellant.
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                  [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________
                                 ____________________

            Eusebio Escobar-De-Jesus on brief pro se.
            ________________________
            Guillermo  Gil,  United  States  Attorney,  Miguel  A.  Fernandez,
            ______________                              _____________________
        Assistant  United States  Attorney, Chief,  Civil  Division, and  Jose
                                                                          ____
        Javier Santos Mimoso,  Assistant United States Attorney,  on brief for
        ____________________
        appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                  SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   We have reviewed  the briefs submitted  by
                 __________

            the parties and the record on appeal.  We affirm the judgment

            of  the district  court, for  the reasons stated  in district

            court's Opinion and  Order dated December  12, 1995, and  its

            Opinion and Order dated  October 17, 1996.   We add only  the

            following.

                 Escobar claims that the seizure of his property violates

            the eighth amendment prohibition against excessive fines.  We

            do not  now decide whether  the eighth  amendment applies  to

            forfeitures under 21 U.S.C.   881(a)(6), but even if it does,

            the forfeiture here was not  "excessive," given the value  of

            the real  property forfeited  and the  value  of the  cocaine

            Escobar conspired  to import  and/or possess  with intent  to

            distribute.

                 Escobar  argues the district  court erred in  failing to

            issue a writ  of habeas corpus ad testificandum  to allow him
                             ______________________________

            to attend his trial.  In its Opinion  and Order, the district

            court  did  not  discuss  whether  Escobar's  presence  would

            substantially  further the resolution of the case.  Latiolais
                                                                _________

            v.  Whitley, 93  F.3d  205, 208  (5th Cir.  1996).   Even so,
            ___________

            Escobar did  not adequately  explain how  his presence  would

            have been helpful.  In  addition, we have reviewed the record

            and conclude  that  even  if  error  was  committed,  it  was

            harmless,   since   the   evidence   against   Escobar    was

            overwhelming.

                 We  have reviewed the  remaining issues and  conclude as

            follows.   1)  Federal Rule of  Criminal Procedure 7 does not

            require the government to combine criminal  prosecutions with

            forfeiture  actions, so Escobar's argument to the contrary is

            rejected.  2)  We find no clear error in the district court's

            findings  of  fact, as  the  findings were  supported  by the

            evidence.   3)  Escobar's  arguments that the filing  of this

            action  violated principles  of res  judicata and  collateral

            estoppel,  and  that   the  settlements   with  third   party

            lienholders violated  due  process, were  not  preserved  for

            appeal.    4)   His  allegations  that the  government  acted

            improperly  with regard  to additional  property  he says  is

            missing is  unsupported by the record.  5)   While we take no

            position with  regard to  the district  court's reasoning  in

            fashioning a remedy for the  due process violation, we are in

            agreement with the result.

                 Affirmed.
                 _________

                                         -3-