United States v. Torres-Gonzalez ( 1997 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 97-1244





                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,



                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,



                                          v.



                             ASSORTED PIECES OF JEWELRY,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.




____________



                                RAMON TORRES-GONZALEZ,



                                 Claimant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



                   [Hon. Daniel R. Dominguez, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Ramon Torres-Gonzalez on brief pro se.
_____________________

            Guillermo Gil,  United States Attorney,  and Jacqueline  D. Novas,
_____________                                ____________________

        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________



                                   October 14, 1997

                                 ____________________



























                 Per Curiam.  Claimant Ramon Torres-Gonzalez appeals from



            a  district court  judgment  directing  that  four  items  of



            jewelry   be  forfeited  as   proceeds  of  his  drug-related



            activity.  See 21 U.S.C.    881(a)(6).  As claimant concedes,
___



            the  sole issue squarely presented below--that the forfeiture



            proceeding  constituted   a  second  form  of  punishment  in



            violation  of double  jeopardy--is now  defunct  in light  of



            United States  v. Ursery,  116 S.  Ct. 2135  (1996).   He has
_____________     ______



            accordingly shifted gears on appeal and advanced a variety of



            arguments involving, inter  alia, due process and  the Fourth
___________



            Amendment.



                 None of these contentions is properly before us.   While



            claimant   is  correct  that   several  were  set   forth  as



            affirmative defenses  below, they  were never  pursued.   The



            number of claims was narrowed  at the November 8, 1995 status



            conference.   And in  response to the  court's directive that



            those  remaining  issues  be  briefed,  claimant submitted  a



            pleading  confined to  his  double-jeopardy contention.   All



            other  claims, including those he now presses on appeal, were



            thereby waived.



                 A  review of  claimant's arguments  reveals  them to  be



            without merit in  any event.  Absent any  allegation that the



            forfeiture action was filed outside the applicable statute of



            limitations,  his complaints of  administrative delay fail in



            light  of United States  v. James Daniel  Good Real Property,
_____________     ________________________________







                                         -2-



























            510  U.S. 43, 62-65  (1993).  His  Fourth Amendment argument,



            even if  not waived  as a  result of  his plea agreement,  is



            negated  by  the uncontested  facts  on record.    His prompt



            response  to the  forfeiture complaint  belies  any claim  of



            inadequate  notice.  To the extent  claimant is disputing the



            existence  of   probable  cause   for  the  forfeiture,   the



            government's pleadings  established an ample  basis therefor.



            See, e.g.,  Dock. #  19.  Finally,  the district  court acted
___  ____



            well within its  discretion in declining to  review arguments



            advanced  for the first time in claimant's Rule 59(e) motion.



            See,  e.g., Jorge  Rivera  Surillo &  Co.  v. Falconer  Glass
___   ____  _____________________________     _______________



            Indus.,  37 F.3d  25,  28-29  (1st  Cir. 1994);  Williams  v.
______                                           ________



            Poulos, 11 F.3d 271, 289 (1st Cir. 1993).
______



                 Affirmed.
_________



















































                                         -3-