October 26, 1995
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 95-1700
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, Appellee,
v.
ONE 1981 MERCEDES BENZ, VIN, WDBBA45ABB008518 AND ONE LOT OF
$6,122.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY,
Defendant, Appellee,
FRANK M. GOLDMAN,
Claimant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,
Circuit Judges.
Frank Goldman on brief pro se.
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Richard L. Hoffman,
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
Per Curiam. Claimant Frank Goldman appeals pro se from
the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of
the United States in this civil forfeiture action under 21
U.S.C. 881(a)(6). Goldman was previously convicted of
trafficking offenses in connection with his attempted sale of
cocaine to a government undercover agent. The facts and the
extensive evidence against Goldman are summarized in our
decision affirming his conviction. United States v. Goldman,
41 F.3d 785 (1st Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1321
(1995).
In connection with Goldman's arrest, law enforcement
officers at the scene seized $722 from Goldman's person and
$5,400 from the trunk of Goldman's car. Most of the seized
currency was in small denominations and the currency taken
from the car was in an open gym bag underneath a paper bag
containing two kilograms of cocaine. While the criminal case
was pending, the government filed a civil forfeiture action
against the seized currency under 21 U.S.C. 881(a)(6).
Ultimately, Goldman filed a motion for summary judgment;
in an accompanying affidavit, he asserted that the money in
the gym bag was the remainder of a $12,000 inheritance from
his father that Goldman had been planning to deposit in the
bank. The government cross-moved for summary judgment,
supported by transcripts of the testimony in Goldman's
criminal trial. The district court granted the government's
motion, and this appeal followed.
We need not resolve Goldman's argument that civil
forfeiture for the same conduct previously made the subject
of a criminal conviction would violate the double jeopardy
clause of the Fifth Amendment. Compare United States v.
$405,089.23 U.S. Currency, 33 F.3d 1210, 1216-22 (9th Cir.
1994), amended 56 F.3d 41 (1995), with United States v.
Tilley, 18 F.3d 295, 297-300 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.
Ct. 573 (1994). There is no indication that the currency in
question derived from any transaction for which Goldman was
convicted or was linked to any prior conviction. Thus, no
double jeopardy question is presented.
The government had a relatively light burden to show
probable cause to believe the seized currency was
forfeitable, see United States v. 255 Broadway, 9 F.3d 1000,
1003 (1st Cir. 1993), and the facts already described amply
met that burden. The obligation then shifted to Goldman to
provide specific facts showing that there was a genuine issue
of material fact for trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). In
our view, the notion that Goldman's alleged inheritance was
being carried around in small bills in an open gym bag
underneath cocaine in the trunk of his car is sufficiently
fanciful that no trial was required. Affirmed.
-3-
-3-