United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Timothy Orallo, Defendant-appellant, 83 F.3d 430 (9th Cir. 1996)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Federal prisoner Timothy Orallo appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his guilty plea conviction on double jeopardy grounds. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We review de novo, Doganiere v. United States, 914 F.2d 165, 167 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 940 (1991), and we affirm.

Orallo contends that his conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment because of the prior administrative forfeiture of property seized at the time of his arrest. However, because Orallo concedes that he received adequate notice of the forfeiture but failed to file a claim of ownership and cost bond to contest the forfeiture, his double jeopardy contention is foreclosed by United States v. Cretacci, 62 F.3d 307 (9th Cir. 1995), petition for cert. filed, (Feb. 13, 1996) (No. 95-7955) (forfeiture of abandoned property does not implicate any rights protected by Double Jeopardy Clause).

We reject Orallo's contention that by filing a petition for remission or mitigation he adequately claimed an ownership interest in the property such that it could not be deemed abandoned. See 19 U.S.C. § 1609(a) (1988); United States v. Castro, No. 95-50480, slip op. 2089, 2097 (9th Cir. March 5, 1996) (merely asserting ownership without fully complying with the requirements for filing a claim and cost bond constitutes abandonment of property as a matter of law); see also United States v. Wong, 62 F.3d 1212, 1214 (9th Cir. 1995) (because remission or mitigation is not a formal proceeding seeking to punish the petitioner, no jeopardy attached to filing of petition for remission/mitigation).

AFFIRMED.