70 F.3d 1281
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Enrique Canman MACHADO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 95-50186.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 20, 1995.*Decided Nov. 22, 1995.

Before:  PREGERSON, NORRIS and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.


1
MEMORANDUM**


2
Enrique Canman Machado appeals the district court's affirmance of his conviction before a magistrate judge for possession of marijuana.  We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291, and we affirm.


3
Machado contends that his criminal conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because he had already been subjected to punishment for the same conduct through the government's uncontested administrative forfeiture proceedings.  This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Cretacci, 62 F.3d 307 (9th Cir.1995), in which we held that the administrative forfeiture of unclaimed property does not constitute punishment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.


4
AFFIRMED.



*
 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument.  Fed.R.App.P. 34(a);  9th Cir.R. 34-4


**
 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3


