United States v. Orellana ( 1996 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 96-1795



                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                  RONY E. ORELLANA,



                                Defendant, Appellant.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND



                 [Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge]
__________________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________

                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Rony E. Orellana on brief pro se.
________________

            Sheldon  Whitehouse,  United  States  Attorney, and  Stephanie  S.
___________________                                  _____________

        Browne, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
______



                                 ____________________



                                  NOVEMBER 14, 1996

                                 ____________________







































                 Per Curiam.   Having read carefully  the record in  this
__________



            case,  including the  briefs of  the  parties, we  affirm the



            denial of  appellant Orellana's  motion for return  of seized



            property.



                 Orellana's  sole  claim argued  on  appeal  is that  the



            administrative  forfeiture of  money seized  from him  at the



            time  of his arrest violated  due process because  he did not



            receive  adequate  prior notice  of the  intended forfeiture.



            However, the record indicates  that prior notice was sent  by



            first class mail  to the detention  center in which  Orellana



            was  at the  time incarcerated.    Generally, notice  sent by



            ordinary mail to  an address at which  the intended recipient



            resides  is sufficient  to meet the  requirements of  the due



            process clause.   See Weigner v.  City of New York,  852 F.2d
___ _______     ________________



            646  (2d Cir.  1988),  cert. denied,  488  U.S. 1005  (1989).
_____ ______



            "[T]he  proper  inquiry  is  whether  the [government]  acted



            reasonably in  selecting the  means likely to  inform persons



            affected, not whether  each property owner  actually received



            notice."   Id. at 649; see also  United States v. Giraldo, 45
__          ___ ____  _____________    _______



            F.3d  509,  511  (1st  Cir.  1995).  Contrary  to  Orellana's



            suggestion,  notice  by  certified   mail  is  not  required.



            Weigner, 852  F.2d at 650-51.  Furthermore,  Orellana made no
_______



            clear  claim below that he  did not receive  actual notice of



            the intended  forfeiture and no  allegation at  all that  the



            government  was aware that the  notice had not been received.







                                         -2-



























            In  these circumstances,  we see  no error  in the  denial of



            Orellana's motion for return of his seized property.



                 Affirmed.
________































































































                                         -3-