Court Opinion

ID: 2965313
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:38:34.082732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:34.371050
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION -- NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                         ____________________

No. 97-2250

                       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                         Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                  v.

                        ONE RURAL LOT, ET AL.,

                        Defendants, Appellees.

                                         

                        RAMON TORRES-GONZALEZ,

                         Claimant, Appellant.

                         ____________________

             APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

         [Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., Senior U.S. District Judge]

                         ____________________

                                Before

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

                         ____________________

    Ramon Torres-Gonzalez on brief pro se.
    Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, and Miguel A. Fernandez,
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee United States of
America.

                         ____________________
                             May 8, 1998

                         ____________________

           Per Curiam.  We assume arguendo that appellate
    jurisdiction exists and summarily affirm the "final decree of
    forfeiture."  As was the case in a similar appeal recently
    filed by this same appellant, the double jeopardy argument
    emphasized below is now defunct in light of United States v.
    Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996).  And the arguments advanced on
    appeal were never squarely presented to the district court and
    prove unavailing in any event.
        In particular, the suggestion that the government lacked
    standing to bring the instant forfeiture action is baseless. 
    The argument that the filing of multiple forfeiture proceedings
    contravened res judicata or collateral estoppel is meritless,
    especially given the lack of any indication that they involved
    overlapping properties.  The remaining contentions advanced by
    appellant--that Ursery cannot be applied retroactively; that
    the forfeitures here violated the Takings Clause; and that his
    plea agreement was invalid--can be rejected without comment. 
        Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.