
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 97-1244                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,                                          v.                             ASSORTED PIECES OF JEWELRY,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                                                                      ____________                                RAMON TORRES-GONZALEZ,                                 Claimant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                   [Hon. Daniel R. Dominguez, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Ramon Torres-Gonzalez on brief pro se.            _____________________            Guillermo Gil,  United States Attorney,  and Jacqueline  D. Novas,            _____________                                ____________________        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                   October 14, 1997                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.  Claimant Ramon Torres-Gonzalez appeals from            a  district court  judgment  directing  that  four  items  of            jewelry   be  forfeited  as   proceeds  of  his  drug-related            activity.  See 21 U.S.C.    881(a)(6).  As claimant concedes,                       ___            the  sole issue squarely presented below--that the forfeiture            proceeding  constituted   a  second  form  of  punishment  in            violation  of double  jeopardy--is now  defunct  in light  of            United States  v. Ursery,  116 S.  Ct. 2135  (1996).   He has            _____________     ______            accordingly shifted gears on appeal and advanced a variety of            arguments involving, inter  alia, due process and  the Fourth                                 ___________            Amendment.                  None of these contentions is properly before us.   While            claimant   is  correct  that   several  were  set   forth  as            affirmative defenses  below, they  were never  pursued.   The            number of claims was narrowed  at the November 8, 1995 status            conference.   And in  response to the  court's directive that            those  remaining  issues  be  briefed,  claimant submitted  a            pleading  confined to  his  double-jeopardy contention.   All            other  claims, including those he now presses on appeal, were            thereby waived.                  A  review of  claimant's arguments  reveals  them to  be            without merit in  any event.  Absent any  allegation that the            forfeiture action was filed outside the applicable statute of            limitations,  his complaints of  administrative delay fail in            light  of United States  v. James Daniel  Good Real Property,                      _____________     ________________________________                                         -2-            510  U.S. 43, 62-65  (1993).  His  Fourth Amendment argument,            even if  not waived  as a  result of  his plea agreement,  is            negated  by  the uncontested  facts  on record.    His prompt            response  to the  forfeiture complaint  belies  any claim  of            inadequate  notice.  To the extent  claimant is disputing the            existence  of   probable  cause   for  the  forfeiture,   the            government's pleadings  established an ample  basis therefor.            See, e.g.,  Dock. #  19.  Finally,  the district  court acted            ___  ____            well within its  discretion in declining to  review arguments            advanced  for the first time in claimant's Rule 59(e) motion.            See,  e.g., Jorge  Rivera  Surillo &  Co.  v. Falconer  Glass            ___   ____  _____________________________     _______________            Indus.,  37 F.3d  25,  28-29  (1st  Cir. 1994);  Williams  v.            ______                                           ________            Poulos, 11 F.3d 271, 289 (1st Cir. 1993).              ______                 Affirmed.                 _________                                         -3-
