Filed: Jul. 30, 2001
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: DIANE BILIS;, John A. Bosk on brief for appellant., Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Shelbey D., Wright, Assistant United States Attorney, on Motion for Summary, Disposition for appellee. United States v. Palmer, 956 F.2d 3, 6 (1st Cir. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 00-2258
UNITED STATES,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
25 PLEASANT STREET,
Defendant-Appellant
LOREEN DAVID,
Claimant
____________________
190 HIGH STREET,
Defendant
DIANE BILIS; JOHN BILIS; ARTHUR BILIS,
Claimants
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Torruella and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
John A. Bosk on brief for appellant.
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Shelbey D.
Wright, Assistant United States Attorney, on Motion for Summary
Disposition for appellee.
July 25, 2001
Per Curiam. Loreen David appeals a district court judgment
which denied her motion for relief from a final judgment
compelling the forfeiture of her tavern at 25 Pleasant Street in
Webster, Massachusetts. Appellant maintains that the forfeiture
was unfair because it violated the terms of her plea agreement
and because her former attorney is to blame for her failure to
litigate the matter in the district court.
This court has thoroughly reviewed the record and the
parties' briefs on appeal. We conclude that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant relief. See
United States v. Parcel of Land and Residence at 18 Oakwood
Street, 958 F.2d 1, 5-6 (1st Cir. 1992); United States v. One
Lot of $25,721.00 in Currency,
938 F.2d 1417, 1422 (1st Cir.
1991); United States v. Proceeds of Sale of 3,888 Pounds Atl.
Sea Scallops,
857 F.2d 46, 49 (1st Cir. 1988). We decline to
consider appellant's contention that the forfeiture constituted
an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment because
appellant failed to raise this argument below and has presented
no reason for having failed to do so. See Amcel Corp. v.
International Exec. Sales, Inc.,
170 F.3d 32, 35 (1st Cir.
1999); United States v. Palmer,
956 F.2d 3, 6 (1st Cir. 1992).
Accordingly, the government's motion for summary disposition is
granted. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See
-3-
Loc. R. 27(c).
Q:\TO_ABBS\unpub\WP\00-2258.01A
-4-
