IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-60629
(Summary Calendar)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAMES EDWARD JEFFERSON,
a/k/a “Peanut,”
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
(USDC No. 4:93-CR-21-D)
- - - - - - - - - -
May 28, 1997
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James Jefferson appeals from the order reimbursing the
Government $8,622 for the cost of paying Jefferson’s legal
representation in his criminal proceedings from funds seized from
Jefferson when he was arrested, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(f).
Jefferson contends that the district court’s reimbursement
order violated the Due Process Clause because he had no prior
knowledge that the Government would argue for forfeiture under
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
§ 3006A(f); because the district court and the Government denied
him the assistance of retained counsel at trial and did nothing to
help him obtain a refund from retained counsel; because he was not
informed during his criminal proceedings that future reimbursement
was a condition of appointment of counsel; and because the
Government failed to direct the court’s attention to the funds used
for reimbursement when the court investigated Jefferson’s financial
status before appointing counsel. He argues that the district
court failed to investigate adequately his financial status before
appointing counsel; that the district court lacked authority to
order reimbursement after his conviction and sentence were affirmed
by this court; that the district court lacked authority to order
forfeiture of his funds after it was ordered returned to him by a
state court; and that the district court lacked authority to order
reimbursement under § 3006A(f) after the Government failed to seek
forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. §§ 853, 881.
Jefferson received notice of the hearing regarding the
Government’s reimbursement motion and his own motion for return of
the funds to him. He received a meaningful opportunity to be heard
at the hearing on the motions. Jefferson received the process due
to him. Rodriguez v. United States, 66 F.3d 95, 97 (5th Cir.
1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1058 (1996). Regarding Jefferson’s
remaining arguments, we have reviewed the record and the briefs of
the party and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for essentially the reasons relied upon by the district court. See
United States v. Jefferson, No. 4:93-CR-021-D (N.D. Miss. Sep. 5,
2
1996). Finally, Jefferson’s motion for appointment of appellate
counsel is DENIED.
AFFIRMED.
3