John Erwin Beck v. United States ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                                        ___________
    No. 96-1869
    John Erwin Beck,
    *
    *
    v.
    * District of Minnesota.
    *   [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellee.
    ___________
    Filed:    September 11, 1996
    Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.
    civil forfeitures of cash seized in connection with hi
    arres        John   Erwin    Beck   pleaded   guilty    to   aiding   and   abetting   th
    possession                                                                              6
    s                                                              United States v
    Beck                        th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (Table).         Beck then filed
    28 U                                                                            n
    Brady v. Maryland          .
    1
    87 (1                                          denied the motion, and Bec
    We      ieve the district court properly denied Beck's motio
    without an evidentiary hearing
    The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States Distric
    for the District of Minnesota.
    we conclude the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively
    show Beck is not entitled to relief.             See Holloway v. United
    States, 
    960 F.2d 1348
    , 1351 (8th Cir. 1992) (standard of review).
    Beck's double jeopardy argument is foreclosed for the reasons
    set forth in United States v. Ursery, 
    116 S. Ct. 2135
    , 2148-49
    (1996) (holding civil forfeitures under 
    21 U.S.C. § 881
     (a)(6) and
    (7) are neither "punishment" nor criminal for purposes of Double
    Jeopardy Clause).     We agree with the district court that counsel
    was not ineffective for failing to raise the double jeopardy claim.
    See Rodriguez v. United States, 
    17 F.3d 225
    , 226 (8th Cir. 1994)
    (per   curiam)   (counsel    not   ineffective   for   failing   to   pursue
    meritless argument).        We also agree there is no merit to Beck's
    claim that the government should have disclosed the fact, and legal
    effect, of the prior forfeitures.          See Brady, 373 U.S. at 87
    (government must disclose favorable evidence that is material to
    either guilt or punishment); United States v. Bagley, 
    473 U.S. 667
    ,
    682 (1985) (evidence is material only if there is reasonable
    probability result of proceeding would have been different had it
    been disclosed to defense); United States v. Manthei, 
    979 F.2d 124
    ,
    127 (8th Cir. 1992) (Brady is not violated where defendant was
    aware of evidence prior to trial).
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-