IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
Nos. 95-10041 & 95-10238
Summary Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BENITA ALCALA,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:94-CR-043-R
- - - - - - - - - -
May 21, 1996
Before WIENER, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Benita Alcala argues that principles of double jeopardy bar
her prosecution because she has forfeited $71,000 in cash plus
jewelry appraised at $38,259. Alcala's forfeiture of $71,000 was
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), which provides for the
forfeiture of proceeds of drug sales or funds traceable to such
proceeds and, thus, was not "punishment" implicating principles
of double jeopardy. 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6); United States v.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
Nos. 95-10041 & 95-10238
-2-
Tilley, 18 F.3d 295, 297 n.1 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct.
573, 574 (1994). The court declines to consider Alcala's
argument concerning the alleged forfeiture of jewelry because she
has not supported her claim with documentation or information as
to the nature of the alleged forfeiture. Alcala's conclusional
statements that her prosecution is in violation of the Eighth
Amendment are insufficient to preserve this issue for appellate
review. Brinkmann v. Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987);
FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(6).
AFFIRMED.