[NOT FOR PUBLICATION -- NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]



                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                      FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                         ____________________



No. 97-2250





                       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,



                         Plaintiff, Appellee,



                                  v.



                        ONE RURAL LOT, ET AL.,



                        Defendants, Appellees.



                                         



                        RAMON TORRES-GONZALEZ,



                         Claimant, Appellant.



                         ____________________





             APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



         [Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., Senior U.S. District Judge]



                         ____________________



                                Before



                        Torruella, Chief Judge,

                   Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.



                         ____________________



    Ramon Torres-Gonzalez on brief pro se.

    Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, and Miguel A. Fernandez,

Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee United States of

America.



                         ____________________

                             May 8, 1998



                         ____________________



           Per Curiam.  We assume arguendo that appellate

    jurisdiction exists and summarily affirm the "final decree of

    forfeiture."  As was the case in a similar appeal recently

    filed by this same appellant, the double jeopardy argument

    emphasized below is now defunct in light of United States v.

    Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996).  And the arguments advanced on

    appeal were never squarely presented to the district court and

    prove unavailing in any event.

        In particular, the suggestion that the government lacked

    standing to bring the instant forfeiture action is baseless. 

    The argument that the filing of multiple forfeiture proceedings

    contravened res judicata or collateral estoppel is meritless,

    especially given the lack of any indication that they involved

    overlapping properties.  The remaining contentions advanced by

    appellant--that Ursery cannot be applied retroactively; that

    the forfeitures here violated the Takings Clause; and that his

    plea agreement was invalid--can be rejected without comment. 

        Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.