Amel Lueth v. United States

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: November 15, 1996
• Docket: 96-1647
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

___________

No. 96-1647 ___________

Amel F. Lueth, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa United States of America, * * {UNPUBLISHED} Appellee. *

Submitted: October 25, 1996

Filed: November 15, 1996 ___________

Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Amel F. Lueth was convicted of several drug trafficking offenses, and we affirmed. United States v. Lueth, 807 F.2d 719 (8th Cir. 1986). In this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, Lueth asserted that the government's seizure and administrative forfeiture of his 1978 Ford van, in pre-indictment proceedings which he did not contest, constituted punishment and thus barred his later criminal prosecution and conviction. He also asserted he was denied due process in

-1- connection with the administrative forfeiture. The district court1 denied relief, and Lueth appeals.

We conclude that Lueth was not entitled to relief. His double jeopardy argument is foreclosed, see United States v. Ursery, 116 S. Ct. 2135, 2148-49 (1996); United States v. Kress, 88 F.3d 664, 665-66 (8th Cir. 1996), and deficient notice as to the forfeiture is not a ground for attacking his conviction under § 2255.

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

1 The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

-2-