UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 96-30154
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
3,000.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY,
Defendant,
CHARLES R. SANDERS,
Claimant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(95-CV-967)
_________________________________________________________________
November 29, 1996
Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charles R. Sanders appeals the judgment in favor of the
Government, following a bench trial, in a 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6)
civil forfeiture proceeding. Sanders contends that the district
court erred by finding that the Government showed probable cause to
believe that the $3,000 was intended to facilitate a drug-
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
trafficking offense, based on his assertion that the evidence
presented by the Government was not believable. Needless to say,
we will not disturb the district court’s credibility
determinations. See United States v. Land, Property Currently
Recorded in Name of Neff, 960 F.2d 561, 563 (5th Cir. 1992).
Sanders’ other contentions are also without merit. The
Government’s filing of a judicial complaint 50 months after the
seizure was not an unreasonable delay, considering its mistaken
belief that Sanders previously had received notice of the
administrative forfeiture. See United States v. $17,420 in United
States Currency, No. 94-10711, at 3-4 (5th Cir. May 2, 1995)
(unpublished); see also 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.3 (unpublished opinions
issued before January 1, 1996, are precedent).
Sanders’ contention that the forfeiture violated his right to
be free from double jeopardy, because he has been punished
criminally for the conduct referenced in the forfeiture, is without
merit. See United States v. Ursery, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S. Ct. 2135,
2147-49 (1996). Next, Sanders’ claim of perjury regarding the
location of the funds is without merit because their location is
not material and had no bearing on the outcome of the case. See
United States v. Dunnigan, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S. Ct. 1111, 1116
(1993). Finally, Sanders was not forced to incriminate himself
when he was required to testify at the forfeiture trial regarding
- 2 -
his drug-trafficking offenses. See United States v. Little Al, 712
F.2d 133, 135-36 (5th Cir. 1983).
AFFIRMED
- 3 -