
USCA1 Opinion

	




          July 29, 1996                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 95-2369                                 LIONEL A. LALIBERTE,                                Petitioner, Appellant,                                          v.                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                Respondent, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                   [Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]                                               ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Lionel Laliberte on brief pro se.            ________________            Donald  K. Stern,  United States Attorney, and  Shelbey D. Wright,            ________________                                _________________        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.   Petitioner Lionel  Laliberte appeals  from                 __________            the denial  of his second  motion under 28  U.S.C.    2255 to            vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence.  To the extent he            is contending that his  conviction and sentence are violative            of  double   jeopardy  because  of  the   earlier  orders  of            forfeiture, his claim  falters on the basis  of United States                                                            _____________            v. Ursery, ___  S. Ct. ___, 1996  WL 340815 (June 24,  1996).               ______            To the extent  he is contending that his forfeited properties            were  improperly  characterized  as  "proceeds" of  his  drug            trafficking activity  for purposes of 21  U.S.C.   881(a)(6),            his  claim  has already  been rejected  by  this court.   See                                                                      ___            United  States  v. Parcels  of Land,  903  F.2d 36  (1st Cir.            ______________     ________________            1990).   Nor was any  such claim raised  below.  Accordingly,            the judgment is summarily affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.                                      ________   ___                                         -2-
