United States v. 25 Pleasant Street

First Circuit

United States v. 25 Pleasant Street

14 F. App'x 21

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedJuly 30, 2001

Docket00-2258

StatusPublished

This text of 14 F. App'x 21 (United States v. 25 Pleasant Street) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. 25 Pleasant Street, 14 F. App'x 21 (1st Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Loreen David appeals a district court judgment which denied her motion for relief from a final judgment compelling the forfeiture of her tavern at 25 Pleasant Street in Webster, Massachusetts. Appellant maintains that the forfeiture was unfair because it violated the terms of her plea agreement and because her former attorney is to blame for her failure to litigate the matter in the district court.

This court has thoroughly reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs on appeal. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant relief. See United States v. Parcel of Land and Residence at 18 Oakwood Street, 958 F.2d 1, 5-6 (1st Cir.1992); United States v. One Lot of $25,721.00 in Currency, 938 F.2d 1417, 1422 (1st Cir. 1991); United States v. Proceeds of Sale of 3,888 Pounds Atl. Sea Scallops, 857 F.2d 46, 49 (1st Cir.1988). We decline to consider appellant’s contention that the forfeiture constituted an excessive fine in viola *22 tion of the Eighth Amendment because appellant failed to raise this argument below and has presented no reason for having failed to do so. See Amcel Corp. v. International Exec. Sales, Inc., 170 F.3d 32, 35 (1st Cir.1999); United States v. Palmer, 956 F.2d 3, 6 (1st Cir.1992). Accordingly, the government’s motion for summary disposition is granted. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See Loc. R. 27(c).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Loreen David appeals a district court judgment which denied her motion for relief from a final judgment compelling the forfeiture of her tavern at 25 Pleasant Street in Webster, Massachusetts. Appellant maintains that the forfeiture was unfair because it violated the terms of her plea agreement and because her former attorney is to blame for her failure to litigate the matter in the district court.

This court has thoroughly reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs on appeal. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant relief. See United States v. Parcel of Land and Residence at 18 Oakwood Street, 958 F.2d 1, 5-6 (1st Cir.1992); United States v. One Lot of $25,721.00 in Currency, 938 F.2d 1417, 1422 (1st Cir. 1991); United States v. Proceeds of Sale of 3,888 Pounds Atl. Sea Scallops, 857 F.2d 46, 49 (1st Cir.1988). We decline to consider appellant’s contention that the forfeiture constituted an excessive fine in viola *22 tion of the Eighth Amendment because appellant failed to raise this argument below and has presented no reason for having failed to do so. See Amcel Corp. v. International Exec. Sales, Inc., 170 F.3d 32, 35 (1st Cir.1999); United States v. Palmer, 956 F.2d 3, 6 (1st Cir.1992). Accordingly, the government’s motion for summary disposition is granted. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See Loc. R. 27(c).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 F. App'x 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-25-pleasant-street-ca1-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack