United States v. One Parcel

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________


No. 96-1170


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



              ONE PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY WITH BUILDINGS, APPURTENANCES,

              AND IMPROVEMENTS, KNOWN AS 154 MANLEY ROAD, LOCATED IN THE

                     TOWN OF BURRILLVILLE, RHODE ISLAND, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.


____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND



                       [Hon. Mary M. Lisi, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________


Sheldon  Whitehouse,  United  States  Attorney,   and  Michael  P.
            ___________________                                    ___________

        Iannotti,  Assistant  United  States  Attorney,  for appellant  United
        ________

        States of America.

            Ernest Barone for appellees.
            _____________



                                 ____________________



                                    July 30, 1996

                                 ____________________



Per Curiam.  The government appeals from a decision
                      __________



            of the  district court dismissing its  civil forfeiture claim



            as  violative of  the  Double Jeopardy  Clause  of the  Fifth



            Amendment.  United  States v.  154 Manley Rd.,  908 F.  Supp.
                        ______________     ______________



            1070,  1083 (D.R.I.  1995).   The parties  agree, and  we are



            likewise persuaded,  that the judgment below  must be vacated



            in light  of the  Supreme Court's  recent decision in  United
                                                                   ______



            States v. Ursery, 116 S. Ct. 2134 (1996) (holding that in rem
            ______    ______



            civil  forfeitures under  21 U.S.C.    881(a)(7)  are neither



            "punishment" nor criminal for purposes of the Double Jeopardy



            Clause),  and the case remanded for further proceedings.  See
                                                                      ___



            Loc. R. 27.1.



                      Vacated and remanded.
                      ____________________


-2-