Laliberte v. United States ( 1996 )

USCA1 Opinion

          July 29, 1996

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 95-2369



                                 LIONEL A. LALIBERTE,



                                Petitioner, Appellant,



                                          v.



                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,



                                Respondent, Appellee.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



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



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,

                                   Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Lionel Laliberte on brief pro se.
________________

            Donald  K. Stern,  United States Attorney, and  Shelbey D. Wright,
________________                                _________________

        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________













                 Per Curiam.   Petitioner Lionel  Laliberte appeals  from
__________



























            the denial  of his second  motion under 28  U.S.C.    2255 to



            vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence.  To the extent he



            is contending that his  conviction and sentence are violative



            of  double   jeopardy  because  of  the   earlier  orders  of



            forfeiture, his claim  falters on the basis  of United States
_____________



            v. Ursery, ___  S. Ct. ___, 1996  WL 340815 (June 24,  1996).
______



            To the extent  he is contending that his forfeited properties



            were  improperly  characterized  as  "proceeds" of  his  drug



            trafficking activity  for purposes of 21  U.S.C.   881(a)(6),



            his  claim  has already  been rejected  by  this court.   See
___



            United  States  v. Parcels  of Land,  903  F.2d 36  (1st Cir.
______________     ________________



            1990).   Nor was any  such claim raised  below.  Accordingly,



            the judgment is summarily affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
________   ___























































                                         -2-