UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-10459
Summary Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
$18,140.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, ET AL.,
Defendants,
and
DOUGLAS RAY DUNKINS, JR.,
Claimant-Appellant.
______________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas
(4:92-cv-0023)
______________________________________________
February 21, 1996
Before KING, SMITH and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Douglas Dunkins appeals the district court's grant of summary
judgment in favor of the Government in this civil forfeiture
proceeding brought pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). We affirm
for the following reasons.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
The instant forfeiture of proceeds from illegal drug sales
pursuant to § 881(a)(6) does not constitute "punishment." United
States v. Tilley, 18 F.3d 295, 297-300 (5th Cir.), 115 S.Ct. 573
(1994). Because there is no "punishment," there is no double
jeopardy. Id.
The district court did not err in finding probable cause to
believe that the property at issue was the proceeds of illegal drug
transactions.
Dunkins' argument that he was deprived of a right to appeal to
the district court is without merit because, through his attorney,
Dunkins signed a form consenting to have a magistrate judge conduct
any and all proceedings in his case.
We do not address Dunkins' argument that the district court
erred in awarding costs because he failed to raise that contention
in the district court.
Finally, Dunkins argues that he did not receive notice that
the Government sought forfeiture of certain firearms seized from
his home. Because the instant proceeding did not involve the
forfeiture of any firearms, we are without jurisdiction to
entertain this claim.
AFFIRMED.