USA vs. Stevenson, (5th Cir. 2003)
Linked as:
Text
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-30496 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus HERMAN STEVENSON, III, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (95-CR-377-3) January 28, 2003 Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Defendant-Appellant Herman Stevenson, III, appeals the district courtÂ’s denial of his motion for the return of property forfeited in con junction with his criminal drug and weapons convictions. He contends that the district court erred in denying the return of his pistol, which was administratively forfeited by the DEA, arguing that the DEA had faile d to comply with the procedural notice requirements. Because Stevenson received actual notice of the seizure and proposed forfeiture of the weapon before the time had run for him to make an adm inistrative claim, he received sufficient process. S ee In re Sam , 894 F.2d 778, 782 (5th Cir. 1990); cf. United States v. Robinson , 78 F.3d 172, 174-75 (5th Cir. 1996).
Stevenson also contends that he is entitled to the return of money seized from him at the time of his arrest. Unfortunately for him, he knowingly waived his right to challenge the forfeiture at trial. S ee United States v. Dodson , 288 F.3d 153, 160 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 123 S. Ct. 32 (2002). We cannot review StevensonÂ’s assertion, made for the first time on appeal, that he stipulated to the forfeiture based on the ineffective assistance of counsel because his c ontention does not present a purely legal question.
See Diaz v. Collins , 114 F.3d 69, 71 n.5 (5th Cir. 1997).
StevensonÂ’s claim that he is entitled to the full value of the real estate and vehicle listed in the su perseding indictment as forfeitable property is without merit, as those items were not in fact seized by the government.
Stevenson also maintains that for f eiture of his property constituted “punishment” for double jeopardy purposes. He is mistaken, as neither criminal nor civil forfeitures can form the basis of a double jeopardy claim. S ee United States v. Ursery , 518 U.S. 267, 288 (1996); United States v. Garcia Abrego , 141 F.3d 142, 173-74 (5th Cir. 1998).
Ste venson next insists that the trial court exhibited bias against him through adverse judic ial rulings. Such rulings are insufficient to support his a llegation. S ee Liteky v. United States , 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).
Finally, Stevenson attempts to challenge the district court§ 2255 motion.
We have already denied Stevenson a certificate of appealability on that motion; he cannot reurge these claims for relief before this court.
In conclusion, we hold that Stevenson has not established that the district co urt erred in denying relief on his motion for the return of forfeited property. S ee Robinson , 78 F.3d at 174.
Consequently, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
S:\OPINIONS\UNPUB\02\02-30496.0.wpd 4/29/04 9:40 am
Sponsored links
This document cites
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Garcia Abrego, Defendant-Appellant., 141 F.3d 142 (5th Cir. 1998)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Felipe Diaz, Et Al., Plaintiffs, Felipe Diaz, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. Collins, Defendant-Appellee., 114 F.3d 69 (5th Cir. 1997)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clarence Robinson, Defendant-Appellant., 78 F.3d 172 (5th Cir. 1996)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cuyler A. Dodson, Defendant-Appellant., 288 F.3d 153 (5th Cir. 2002)
- U.S. Supreme Court - United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
