UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                           _____________________

                               No. 98-20857
                             Summary Calendar
                          _____________________

                        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                          Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                    versus

                              JOYCE E. POLASEK,

                                             Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Southern District of Texas
                         (H-96-CR-0261-1)
_________________________________________________________________

                              October 12, 1999

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Joyce E. Polasek appeals the district court’s judgment of bond

forfeiture     and   denial   of   her   petition   for   remission   of   bond

forfeiture.      She maintains that the district court abused its

discretion by forfeiting her $50,000 appearance bond, because the

Government represented at her sentencing hearing that it was

seeking forfeiture of only the $7,500 cash securing her bond, the

Government failed to demonstrate any loss or expense incurred in

connection with her admitted violation of the conditions of her

release (she committed another criminal offense while released on

bond), and the amount of the forfeiture was punitive and excessive.

     *
      Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
     Pursuant to our review of the record, there is no reversible

error.   The court did not abuse its discretion by forfeiting the

bond.    See United States v. Cervantes, 

, 461-63 (5th

Cir. 1982).   Polasek has not demonstrated plain error with respect

to her contention, raised for the first time on appeal, that the

forfeiture constituted an excessive fine in violation of the

Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.   See United States

v. Calverley, 

, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), cert.

denied, 

(1995); Highlands Ins. Co. v. National Union

Fire Ins. Co., 

, 1031-32 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied,

(1995).

                                                     AFFIRMED




                               - 2 -