[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 96-1795
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
RONY E. ORELLANA,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
Rony E. Orellana on brief pro se.
Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, and Stephanie S.
Browne, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
NOVEMBER 14, 1996
Per Curiam. Having read carefully the record in this
case, including the briefs of the parties, we affirm the
denial of appellant Orellana's motion for return of seized
property.
Orellana's sole claim argued on appeal is that the
administrative forfeiture of money seized from him at the
time of his arrest violated due process because he did not
receive adequate prior notice of the intended forfeiture.
However, the record indicates that prior notice was sent by
first class mail to the detention center in which Orellana
was at the time incarcerated. Generally, notice sent by
ordinary mail to an address at which the intended recipient
resides is sufficient to meet the requirements of the due
process clause. See Weigner v. City of New York, 852 F.2d
646 (2d Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1005 (1989).
"[T]he proper inquiry is whether the [government] acted
reasonably in selecting the means likely to inform persons
affected, not whether each property owner actually received
notice." Id. at 649; see also United States v. Giraldo, 45
F.3d 509, 511 (1st Cir. 1995). Contrary to Orellana's
suggestion, notice by certified mail is not required.
Weigner, 852 F.2d at 650-51. Furthermore, Orellana made no
clear claim below that he did not receive actual notice of
the intended forfeiture and no allegation at all that the
government was aware that the notice had not been received.
-2-
In these circumstances, we see no error in the denial of
Orellana's motion for return of his seized property.
Affirmed.
-3-