United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant, v. Tan Vominh, Defendant-appellant-cross-appellee.united States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Thomas G. Sherrett, Defendant-appellant.united States of America, Plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant, v. Thanh Hai Vominh, Defendant-appellant-cross-appellee, 107 F.3d 19 (9th Cir. 1996)

MEMORANDUM^** 

The district court found that some counts of a drug conspiracy indictment had to be dismissed because of previous civil forfeitures of the defendants' property. Defendants argue that under the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Ursery, 116 S. Ct. 2135 (1996), they are entitled to a remand to determine whether the applicable forfeiture statute as applied is so punitive as to render it criminal. They are not.

In United States v. Sardone, 1996 WL 492690, No. 95-50303 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 1996), we explained that Ursery requires us to look at the statute to determine if it is punitive, not at the underlying facts of the proceeding. Sardone, 1996 WL 492690 at * 3. The defendants' property was seized under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a) (6). In Ursery, the Supreme Court determined that 21 U.S.C. § 881(a) (6) is not criminal or punitive, so it cannot serve as the basis for a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. See Ursery, 116 S. Ct. at 2148. The dismissal on double jeopardy grounds must be reversed. For the same reason, we affirm the district court's decision to allow certain counts of the indictment to proceed.

In light of Ursery, the district court's decision to allow the money laundering and structuring counts is AFFIRMED. The district court's decision to dismiss the conspiracy, importation, and distribution counts is REVERSED and REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings.