[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 97-1220



                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,



                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,



                                          v.



                ONE 1989 23 FT. WELLCRAFT MOTOR VESSEL, ETC., ET AL.,



                                     Defendants.

                                ______________________



                              EUSEBIO ESCOBAR-DE-JESUS,



                                Intervenor, Appellant.

                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



                  [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________



            Eusebio Escobar-De-Jesus on brief pro se.
            ________________________

            Guillermo  Gil,  United  States  Attorney,  Miguel  A.  Fernandez,
            ______________                              _____________________

        Assistant  United States  Attorney, Chief,  Civil  Division, and  Jose
                                                                          ____

        Javier Santos Mimoso,  Assistant United States Attorney,  on brief for
        ____________________

        appellees.





                                 ____________________



                                  SEPTEMBER 30, 1997

                                 ____________________





































                 Per Curiam.   We have reviewed  the briefs submitted  by
                 __________



            the parties and the record on appeal.  We affirm the judgment



            of  the district  court, for  the reasons stated  in district



            court's Opinion and  Order dated December  12, 1995, and  its



            Opinion and Order dated  October 17, 1996.   We add only  the



            following.



                 Escobar claims that the seizure of his property violates



            the eighth amendment prohibition against excessive fines.  We



            do not  now decide whether  the eighth  amendment applies  to



            forfeitures under 21 U.S.C.   881(a)(6), but even if it does,



            the forfeiture here was not  "excessive," given the value  of



            the real  property forfeited  and the  value  of the  cocaine



            Escobar conspired  to import  and/or possess  with intent  to



            distribute.



                 Escobar  argues the district  court erred in  failing to



            issue a writ  of habeas corpus ad testificandum  to allow him
                             ______________________________



            to attend his trial.  In its Opinion  and Order, the district



            court  did  not  discuss  whether  Escobar's  presence  would



            substantially  further the resolution of the case.  Latiolais
                                                                _________



            v.  Whitley, 93  F.3d  205, 208  (5th Cir.  1996).   Even so,
            ___________



            Escobar did  not adequately  explain how  his presence  would



            have been helpful.  In  addition, we have reviewed the record



            and conclude  that  even  if  error  was  committed,  it  was



            harmless,   since   the   evidence   against   Escobar    was



            overwhelming.































                 We  have reviewed the  remaining issues and  conclude as



            follows.   1)  Federal Rule of  Criminal Procedure 7 does not



            require the government to combine criminal  prosecutions with



            forfeiture  actions, so Escobar's argument to the contrary is



            rejected.  2)  We find no clear error in the district court's



            findings  of  fact, as  the  findings were  supported  by the



            evidence.   3)  Escobar's  arguments that the filing  of this



            action  violated principles  of res  judicata and  collateral



            estoppel,  and  that   the  settlements   with  third   party



            lienholders violated  due  process, were  not  preserved  for



            appeal.    4)   His  allegations  that the  government  acted



            improperly  with regard  to additional  property  he says  is



            missing is  unsupported by the record.  5)   While we take no



            position with  regard to  the district  court's reasoning  in



            fashioning a remedy for the  due process violation, we are in



            agreement with the result.



                 Affirmed.
                 _________







































                                         -3-