
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-
