UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 97-31042
Summary Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LENNOX SMITH-STEWART,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(96-CR-182-N-2)
_________________________________________________________________
April 9, 1998
Before WIENER, BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lennox Smith-Stewart, federal prisoner # 25162-034, appeals
the district court’s denial of his motion for the return of $1801
in currency, which was seized from him during his arrest for
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and
subsequently forfeited to the United States in an administrative
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
proceeding. Smith-Stewart’s motion to file his reply brief out of
time is GRANTED.
Smith-Stewart argues that his due process rights were violated
when the United States Customs Service failed to follow the
notification requirements of publishing notice of the forfeiture
for three consecutive weeks and sending written notice of the
forfeiture proceeding to any interested party. See 19 U.S.C. §
1607(a).
The Customs Service’s posting of a notice in the customhouse
nearest the seizure for three consecutive weeks fulfilled the
publication requirement of § 1607. See 19 C.F.R. § 162.45(b)(2).
While Smith-Stewart claims that he did not receive the notification
sent by the Customs Service, the record does not indicate that the
address of the letter was incorrect or that the Customs Service had
reason to believe that Smith-Stewart would not receive the letter.
See Armendariz-Mata v. United States Dept. of Justice, DEA, 82 F.3d
679, 683 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 317 (1996); Berrera-
Montenegro v. United States, 74 F.3d 657, 660-61 (5th Cir. 1996).
The Customs Service acted reasonably in relying on the mail to
notify Smith-Stewart of the forfeiture proceeding. See Armendariz-
Mata, 82 F.3d at 683.
AFFIRMED
2