United States v. Ragin ( 1997 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7124
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LEROY RAGIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior
District Judge. (CR-90-25-P, CA-94-379-3-CV-P)
Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 16, 1997
Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leroy Ragin, Appellant Pro Se. Jerry Wayne Miller, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina; B. Frederic
Williams, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Leroy Ragin appeals the district court's order dismissing his
motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiter-
rorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-
132, 110 Stat. 1214. We affirm.
Ragin contends that because he was subjected to both criminal
penalties and the civil forfeiture of his real property, his con-
viction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. We note initially that
Ragin's property was forfeited pursuant to a consent judgment, but
further review of the record reveals that it was seized as for-
feitable under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7) (1994), a statute found cate-
gorically not to constitute criminal punishment for purposes of the
Double Jeopardy Clause. United States v. Ursery, ___ U.S. ___, 64
U.S.L.W. 4565, 4572 (U.S. June 24, 1996) (Nos. 95-345, 95-346). For
these reasons, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Ragin's
motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2