UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Nos. 95-10274, 95-10275, 95-10304, 95-10305
Consolidated
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
TOMMY ROSS ANDERSON, SARAH JANE ANDERSON,
JERRY WAYNE TILLEY, and SUSAN WELLS TILLEY,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeals from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Texas
(3:92-CR-417-G)
July 24, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Tommy Ross Anderson, Sarah Jane Anderson, Jerry Wayne Tilley
and Susan Wells Tilley raise double jeopardy claims regarding their
drug convictions and related forfeitures. We affirm.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
1
FACTS
Beginning in 1986, Tommy and Sarah Anderson, along with Jerry
and Susan Tilley, engaged in the distribution and sale of large
quantities of marijuana. The marijuana was stored at various
locations including the Andersons’ home and the Tilleys’ home, both
in Dallas.
On July 25, 1991, the Government filed in rem a complaint for
forfeiture of property belonging to the Tilleys pursuant to 21
U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) and (7). On January 13, 1992, the Government
amended the complaint to include property owned by the Andersons.
The complaint alleged that the various pieces of property were
subject to forfeiture because they were used to facilitate drug
trafficking, were proceeds from the sale of drugs, or were
traceable to such proceeds. The Andersons answered and filed a
claim for seized property. The Andersons and Tilleys subsequently
entered into a Stipulated Forfeiture of certain personal and real
property. The stipulation further provided for the release and
return to the Andersons and Tilleys of other property. The
district court accordingly entered an order forfeiting the
specified properties on February 9, 1993. The district court
stayed the forfeiture proceedings with respect to the defendants’
homes pending the outcome of the criminal trial.
Contemporaneously with the forfeiture proceedings, on October
8, 1992, the Andersons and Tilleys were indicted on various drug
offenses. The indictment was based on the same acts that gave rise
to the civil forfeiture proceeding. On April 7, 1993, the
2
Andersons and Tilleys moved to dismiss the indictment on the
grounds of double jeopardy, alleging that the civil forfeiture
proceeding had already punished them for the drug trafficking. The
district court denied the motion to dismiss. On interlocutory
appeal, we affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss in United
States v. Tilley, 18 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S.
Ct. 574 (1994).
Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Appellants moved to withdraw
their claims to their residences. In addition, the plea agreement
provided that they preserved their right to further appeal their
double jeopardy claim. The district court granted the Appellants’
motion to withdraw their claims in the forfeiture proceeding and
entered the corresponding order on January 17, 1995. Final
judgments of conviction and sentence were entered as to all
Appellants on March 14, 1995.
On March 16, 1995, the Government moved for final judgment of
forfeiture of the Andersons’ and Tilleys’ respective residences,
which the district court granted.
DISCUSSION
It is unclear from the record which provision, § 881(a)(6) or
§ 881(a)(7), the government used to seize the Appellants’
properties. The appellants assert that civil forfeitures pursuant
to either § 881(a)(6) or § 881(a)(7) constitute punishment for the
purpose of double jeopardy. Under our prior decision in United
States v. Tilley, property forfeited under § 881(a)(6) as drug
proceeds does not constitute punishment. Id. at 299. Subsequent
3
to oral argument in these cases, the Supreme Court resolved any
remaining uncertainty about the double jeopardy implications of
civil forfeiture: “These civil forfeitures [pursuant to §
881(a)(7)] (and civil forfeitures generally), we hold, do not
constitute ‘punishment’ for purposes of the Double Jeopardy
Clause.” United States v. Ursery, 1996 WL 340815 (U.S.)(1996). We
find that Ursery controls this case, and therefore affirm the
judgments and sentences.
AFFIRMED.
4