United States v. One Parcel of Land

First Circuit

United States v. One Parcel of Land

69 F. App'x 1

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedJuly 16, 2003

Docket02-1389

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 69 F. App'x 1 (United States v. One Parcel of Land) 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. One Parcel of Land, 69 F. App'x 1 (1st Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Having thoroughly reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to dismiss the government’s forfeiture claim based on claimant’s delayed transfer to Puerto Rico for his first forfeiture trial. See, e.g. Young v. Gordon, 330 F.3d 76, 81 (1st Cir.2003)(“dismissal should not be viewed either as a sanction of first resort or as an automatic penalty for every failure to abide by a court order.”). Apart from English translations of the relevant deeds, claimant failed to adduce any new evidence to support his claim to the property on retrial. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred in declining to credit fully claimant’s testimony regarding the source of the purchase money. Accordingly, the district court’s forfeiture judgment is affirmed. See Local Rule 27(c).

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

PER CURIAM.

Having thoroughly reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to dismiss the government’s forfeiture claim based on claimant’s delayed transfer to Puerto Rico for his first forfeiture trial. See, e.g. Young v. Gordon, 330 F.3d 76, 81 (1st Cir.2003)(“dismissal should not be viewed either as a sanction of first resort or as an automatic penalty for every failure to abide by a court order.”). Apart from English translations of the relevant deeds, claimant failed to adduce any new evidence to support his claim to the property on retrial. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred in declining to credit fully claimant’s testimony regarding the source of the purchase money. Accordingly, the district court’s forfeiture judgment is affirmed. See Local Rule 27(c).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 F. App'x 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-one-parcel-of-land-ca1-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack