Notice: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 Provides That Dispositions Other Than Opinions or Orders Designated for Publication Are Not Precedential and Should Not Be Cited Except when Relevant Under the Doctrines of Law of the Case, Res Judicata, or Collateral Estoppel, 78 F.3d 595 (9th Cir. 1996)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Paul James Leone appeals pro se the district court's judgment that the property located at 9909 Hawley Road, El Cajon, California, should be forfeited to the United States. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

We review the district court's conclusions of law de novo. United States v. Yacoubian, 24 F.3d 1, 3 (9th Cir. 1994).

Leone contends that the forfeiture proceeding violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. This contention lacks merit.

"The state and federal governments are separate sovereigns. Successive prosecutions based on the same underlying conduct do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause if the prosecutions are brought by separate sovereigns." United States v. 6380 Little Canyon Road, El Dorado, Cal., 59 F.3d 974, 987 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, Leone's double jeopardy argument is based on criminal charges brought in state court and forfeiture proceedings brought in federal court. Because these proceedings were initiated by separate sovereigns, the Double Jeopardy Clause was not violated. See id.

Leone also contends that the district court should have dismissed the forfeiture action because he had not received notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to seizure of his property. This contention lacks merit.

Leone is correct that he was entitled to pre-seizure notice and opportunity to be heard. See United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 114 S. Ct. 492, 505 (1993); see also United States v. 20832 Big Rock Drive, Malibu, Cal., 90265, 51 F.3d 1402, 1405 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that Good applies retroactively). The fact that Leone was deprived of these due process rights, prior to the seizure, does not mean that the forfeiture, which was declared valid after a trial on the merits in which Leone participated, must be declared invalid. See 6380 Little Canyon Road, 59 F.3d at 980-81; 20832 Big Rock Drive, 51 F.3d at 1406.

Here, Leone did not allege that the United States owed him rents which they had collected from the seized properties or that the seized property had been used as evidence against him during a criminal proceeding. Cf. 20832 Big Rock Drive, 51 F.3d at 1406.

Accordingly, the district court did not err by concluding that the property in question should be forfeited to the United States. See 6380 Little Canyon Road, 59 F.3d at 980-81, 987.

AFFIRMED.