United States v. Medina-Reyes ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 00-50326
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    MIGUEL MEDINA-REYES
    Defendant - Appellant
    - - - - - - - - - -
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. EP-93-CR-8-1-H
    - - - - - - - - - -
    August 16, 2001
    Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit
    Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Miguel Medina-Reyes, federal prisoner # 62267-080, appeals
    the district court’s denial of his Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e) motion
    for return of property, which the district court construed as a
    civil action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.     Medina-Reyes
    argues that the district court erred in determining that he
    lacked standing to assert an ownership interest in $1,920,540
    that was forfeited to the United States.      He also contends that
    his due process rights were violated when he failed to receive
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
    except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
    R. 47.5.4.
    No. 00-50326
    -2-
    notice of the forfeiture proceedings and that the separate
    forfeiture proceedings compromised his Fifth Amendment rights
    against self-incrimination.
    Medina-Reyes fails to demonstrate that he had a lawful
    interest in the currency that was seized.   See United States v.
    1977 Porsche Carrera, 
    946 F.2d 30
    , 33 (5th Cir. 1991).
    Accordingly, Medina-Reyes has not shown that he was entitled to
    receive notice of the forfeiture proceeding.   See 19 U.S.C.
    § 1607(a); see also Kadonsky v. United States, 
    216 F.3d 499
    , 502-
    03 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 
    121 S. Ct. 1151
    (2001).
    Because Medina-Reyes’ separate forfeiture proceeding/self-
    incrimination argument was not raised in the district court, and
    since Medina-Reyes does not identify and extraordinary
    circumstances surrounding this issue, it is not addressed by this
    court.   Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 
    183 F.3d 339
    , 342
    (5th Cir. 1999).
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-50326

Filed Date: 8/17/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021