Court Opinion

ID: 2965414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:39:54.891801+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:43.369478
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]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

No. 97-2197

                    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                       Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                v.

                    ONE PARCEL OF LAND, ETC.,
                       Defendant, Appellee.

                                      
                                
                          EDWIN COLON,
                     Defendant, Appellant.
                                

          APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                
               FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
                                
        [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
                                

                             Before
                                
                     Torruella, Chief Judge,
               Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
                                

     Edwin Colon on brief pro se.
     Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Patrick M.
Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

July 10, 1998

                                
                                

            Per Curiam.  Pro se appellant Edwin Colon appeals a
    district court judgment which denied his motion for relief from
    a final judgment compelling the forfeiture of his former
    residence at 13 Maplewood Drive in North Grafton,
    Massachusetts.  Appellant maintains that the forfeiture was
    unfair because he did not receive notice of the forfeiture
    proceeding until the government served him with a copy of the
    court's final judgment on April 12, 1996.
              This court has thoroughly reviewed the record and the
    parties' briefs on appeal.  We conclude that the district court
    did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant relief.  See,
    e.g., United States v. Real Property, 135 F.3d 1312, 1315-16
    (9th Cir. 1998); United States v. Clark, 84 F.3d 378, 381 (10th
    Cir. 1996).  We further reject appellant's contention that
    because the government failed to use his inmate registration
    number from the Plymouth County Correctional Facility in
    addressing its notices, and further erroneously included the
    middle initial "A" in its addresses, the notices were
    constitutionally inadequate.  See, e.g., Bye v. United States,
    105 F.3d 865, 857 (2d Cir. 1997)(per curiam); United States v.
    51 Pieces of Real Property, 17 F.3d 1306, 1317 & n.11 (10th
    Cir. 1994).  Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
    affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.