United States v. Torres-Gonzalez ( 1997 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 97-1244
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, Appellee,
v.
ASSORTED PIECES OF JEWELRY,
Defendant, Appellee.
RAMON TORRES-GONZALEZ,
Claimant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Daniel R. Dominguez, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
Circuit Judges.
Ramon Torres-Gonzalez on brief pro se.
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, and Jacqueline D. Novas,
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
October 14, 1997
Per Curiam. Claimant Ramon Torres-Gonzalez appeals from
a district court judgment directing that four items of
jewelry be forfeited as proceeds of his drug-related
activity. See 21 U.S.C. 881(a)(6). As claimant concedes,
the sole issue squarely presented below--that the forfeiture
proceeding constituted a second form of punishment in
violation of double jeopardy--is now defunct in light of
United States v. Ursery, 116 S. Ct. 2135 (1996). He has
accordingly shifted gears on appeal and advanced a variety of
arguments involving, inter alia, due process and the Fourth
Amendment.
None of these contentions is properly before us. While
claimant is correct that several were set forth as
affirmative defenses below, they were never pursued. The
number of claims was narrowed at the November 8, 1995 status
conference. And in response to the court's directive that
those remaining issues be briefed, claimant submitted a
pleading confined to his double-jeopardy contention. All
other claims, including those he now presses on appeal, were
thereby waived.
A review of claimant's arguments reveals them to be
without merit in any event. Absent any allegation that the
forfeiture action was filed outside the applicable statute of
limitations, his complaints of administrative delay fail in
light of United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property,
-2-
510 U.S. 43, 62-65 (1993). His Fourth Amendment argument,
even if not waived as a result of his plea agreement, is
negated by the uncontested facts on record. His prompt
response to the forfeiture complaint belies any claim of
inadequate notice. To the extent claimant is disputing the
existence of probable cause for the forfeiture, the
government's pleadings established an ample basis therefor.
See, e.g., Dock. # 19. Finally, the district court acted
well within its discretion in declining to review arguments
advanced for the first time in claimant's Rule 59(e) motion.
See, e.g., Jorge Rivera Surillo & Co. v. Falconer Glass
Indus., 37 F.3d 25, 28-29 (1st Cir. 1994); Williams v.
Poulos, 11 F.3d 271, 289 (1st Cir. 1993).
Affirmed.
-3-