USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 97-1244
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, Appellee,
v.
ASSORTED PIECES OF JEWELRY,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________
RAMON TORRES-GONZALEZ,
Claimant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Daniel R. Dominguez, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Ramon Torres-Gonzalez on brief pro se. _____________________
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, and Jacqueline D. Novas, _____________ ____________________
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
____________________
October 14, 1997
____________________
Per Curiam. Claimant Ramon Torres-Gonzalez appeals from
a district court judgment directing that four items of
jewelry be forfeited as proceeds of his drug-related
activity. See 21 U.S.C. 881(a)(6). As claimant concedes, ___
the sole issue squarely presented below--that the forfeiture
proceeding constituted a second form of punishment in
violation of double jeopardy--is now defunct in light of
United States v. Ursery, 116 S. Ct. 2135 (1996). He has _____________ ______
accordingly shifted gears on appeal and advanced a variety of
arguments involving, inter alia, due process and the Fourth ___________
Amendment.
None of these contentions is properly before us. While
claimant is correct that several were set forth as
affirmative defenses below, they were never pursued. The
number of claims was narrowed at the November 8, 1995 status
conference. And in response to the court's directive that
those remaining issues be briefed, claimant submitted a
pleading confined to his double-jeopardy contention. All
other claims, including those he now presses on appeal, were
thereby waived.
A review of claimant's arguments reveals them to be
without merit in any event. Absent any allegation that the
forfeiture action was filed outside the applicable statute of
limitations, his complaints of administrative delay fail in
light of United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, _____________ ________________________________
-2-
510 U.S. 43, 62-65 (1993). His Fourth Amendment argument,
even if not waived as a result of his plea agreement, is
negated by the uncontested facts on record. His prompt
response to the forfeiture complaint belies any claim of
inadequate notice. To the extent claimant is disputing the
existence of probable cause for the forfeiture, the
government's pleadings established an ample basis therefor.
See, e.g., Dock. # 19. Finally, the district court acted ___ ____
well within its discretion in declining to review arguments
advanced for the first time in claimant's Rule 59(e) motion.
See, e.g., Jorge Rivera Surillo & Co. v. Falconer Glass ___ ____ _____________________________ _______________
Indus., 37 F.3d 25, 28-29 (1st Cir. 1994); Williams v. ______ ________
Poulos, 11 F.3d 271, 289 (1st Cir. 1993). ______
Affirmed. _________
-3-