United States v. One Parcel of ( 1992 )

USCA1 Opinion

          December 9, 1992
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________


        No. 92-1011 

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                         ONE PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY WITH THE
                      BUILDING, APPURTENANCES, AND IMPROVEMENTS
                   KNOWN AS 752 BARK STREET, SWANSEA, MA., ET AL.,

                                Defendants-Appellants.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                       [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Marilyn M. Marciarelli on brief pro se.
            ______________________
            A.  John  Pappalardo,  United  States  Attorney,  and  Laurie   J.
            ____________________                                   ___________
        Sartorio, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
        ________


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________
























































































        district  court judgment of civil  forfeiture entered in  favor of the
                 Per Curiam.   Appellant, Marilyn Marciarelli, has appealed  a
                 __________







        has  failed to  order  the trial  transcripts.   Valedon  Martinez  v.
                                                         _________________
        appellant's contentions of district  court error, however, because she
        government after a two-day trial.  We can give no meaningful review of





        Hospital Presbiteriano de la Comunidad, Inc., 806 F.2d 1128, 1135 (1st
        ____________________________________________



        1358 (1st Cir. 1985); Fed. R. App. 10(b).  On the record before us, we





        counsel  claim could arise from a civil forfeiture proceeding, but cf.
                                                                       _______
                 Similarly,  even assuming  that an  ineffective assistance of



        United States v. $250,000 in United States Currency, 808 F.2d 895, 900
        _____________    __________________________________
        discern neither error nor abuse of discretion.









        without  the   full  range   of  constitutional   protections  usually
        (1st Cir. 1987) (forfeiture statutes are predominantly civil in nature
        Cir. 1986); Muniz  Ramirez v. Puerto Rico Fire  Servs., 757 F.2d 1357,
                    ______________    ________________________















        associated with  criminal sanctions), we  have no basis  for reviewing



                 Accordingly, the district court judgment is affirmed.
                                                             _________
        appellant's complaints as to her trial counsel's conduct.