IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-20091
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALEJANDRO HERNAN CEVALLOS,
also known as Alex,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. CR H-92-194-2
- - - - - - - - - -
September 23, 1996
Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Alejandro Hernan Cevallos (#60100-079) appeals from the
district court’s dismissal of his motion for return of forfeited
property and his motion for “default judgment.” The district court
did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for default
judgment because the Government timely responded to Cevallos’
motion by filing a motion to dismiss. Cf. Mason v. Lister, 562
1
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
F.2d 343, 345 (5th Cir. 1977). Independently reviewing the
district court’s order of dismissal, United States v. Schinnell, 80
F.3d 1064, 1069 (5th Cir. 1996), Cevallos abandons on appeal his
claim that he did not receive proper notice. Yohey v. Collins, 985
F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). His substantive claim that the
multiple administrative forfeitures violate the Double Jeopardy
Clause is without merit. United States v. Ursery, 116 S. Ct. 2135,
2147-49 (1996) (a forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881 is civil in
nature and is an in rem proceeding; thus, “in rem civil forfeitures
are neither ‘punishment’ nor criminal for purposes of the Double
Jeopardy Clause.”); United States v. Arreola-Ramos, 60 F.3d 188,
192 (5th Cir. 1995) (because defendant did not timely contest
administrative forfeiture, he was never a party to the civil
forfeiture proceeding or put in jeopardy).
AFFIRMED.