IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-50927
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MANUEL PACHECO, also known as Manuel
Octavio Pacheco-Alvarez; RMI SERVICES
INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendants-Appellants.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-95-CR-171-1
USDC No. SA-95-CR-171-4
- - - - - - - - - -
June 26, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellants appeal the district court’s denial of their
motion to dismiss the criminal indictment against them on the
ground that it violates the Due Process, Double Jeopardy, and
Excessive Fines Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Appellants
argue that the simultaneous prosecution of civil forfeiture
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 95-50927
- 2 -
proceedings and this criminal prosecution violates the Due
Process Clause in that the proceedings are designed to exhaust
appellants’ resources. We decline to review appellants’ due
process claim for lack of jurisdiction in this interlocutory
appeal. See Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 662 (1977);
United States v. Arreola-Ramos, 60 F.3d 188, 191 (5th Cir. 1995).
Appellants also argue that the simultaneous civil forfeiture
and criminal proceedings violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. The
record indicates that the civil forfeiture proceedings have been
consolidated and stayed pending the resolution of the criminal
proceedings against appellants. Because there has been no final
adjudication of civil liability in the civil forfeiture
proceedings, jeopardy has not attached and the instant criminal
prosecution does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. See
United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1344 (5th Cir. 1996).
AFFIRMED.