United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. William Richard Betz, Defendant-appellant, 87 F.3d 1323 (9th Cir. 1996)

Before: BROWNING and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and SMITH,^**  District Judge.

MEMORANDUM^*** 

Betz concedes he received notice of the administrative forfeiture and did not contest it. Thus, his double jeopardy argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Cretacci, 62 F.3d 307 (9th Cir. 1995), petition for cert. filed, (Feb. 13, 1996) (No. 95-7955) (criminal prosecution following administrative forfeiture of unclaimed property does not offend Double Jeopardy Clause).

Neither Betz's declaration of interest in the property nor the fact that the property was seized from his possession render Cretacci inapplicable. "There is no authority for finding that anything less than a legally sufficient claim and bond precludes the government from determining that the property is abandoned as a matter of law and the forfeiture is uncontested." United States v. Castro, 78 F.3d 453, 456-57 (9th Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Washington, 69 F.3d 401, 404 (9th Cir. 1995) (physical possession of property at time of seizure does not demonstrate that defendant wished to pursue that interest when notified that government would seek forfeiture).

We decline to consider Betz's argument that the administrative forfeiture was actually an "in personam criminal forfeiture" requiring compliance with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure as this argument was raised for the first time in Betz's reply. Greenwood v. F.A.A., 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) ("We review only issues that are argued specifically and distinctly in a party's opening brief.").

AFFIRMED.¹