USCA1 Opinion

September 10, 1992

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________
No. 92-1410
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, Appellee,
v.
ONE PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY WITH
BUILDINGS, APPURTENANCES AND IMPROVEMENTS
KNOWN AS 121 WEST SHORE DRIVE, LOCATED IN
THE TOWN OF EXETER, RHODE ISLAND,
Defendant, Appellee,
__________
PETER L. CHAMBERLAIN, JR.,
Plaintiff, Appellant.
____________________
No. 92-1453
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, Appellee,
v.
ONE PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY WITH BUILDINGS,
APPURTENANCES AND IMPROVEMENTS KNOWN AS
121 WEST SHORE DRIVE, LOCATED IN THE TOWN
OF EXETER, RHODE ISLAND,
Defendant, Appellee,
__________
PETER L. CHAMBERLAIN, JR.,
Plaintiff, Appellant.
____________________

APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge]
__________________________
____________________

Before
Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________

Peter L. Chamberlain, Jr. on brief pro se.

_________________________
Lincoln C. Almond, United
States Attorney, and Michael
___________________
________
Iannotti, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appell
________
United States of America.
____________________
____________________

Per Curiam.
___________

Claimant

forfeiting his property (home

U.S.C.

881(a)(7)

appeals from

judgment

and surrounding land) under 21

(authorizing

the

forfeiture

of

real

property

"used,

controlled

or intended

substance

offense

year's imprisonment).
1.

and

be used"

to

punishable by

facilitate a
more

contends

there

was

insufficient

"substantial connection" between his

any unlawful drug activity.

1990) ("We have

1, 3-4 (1st

consistently required that

'substantial connection'

between the property

the

In

drug

activity.").

property

See United States v. Parcel

___ _____________
______

of Land & Residence at 28 Emery Street, 914 F.2d

______________________________________
Cir.

than one

We address claimant's main arguments.

Claimant

evidence of a

to

particular, he

there be a

forfeited and
argues

that no

marihuana plants were actually located on claimant's property

and

that

the

district

connection

was

speculation

that the

$54,000

for

court's

impermissibly
bale

immediately

finding
premised

of marihuana
prior

of

to

his

substantial

solely

on

claimant had
arrest

would

the
paid
be

processed for distribution at claimant's home.

We
which

disagree.

The agreed

the case was presented

ambiguous as

to the

precise

statement of

to the district
location of

facts (on

court) may be

the 30

marihuana

plants located "behind the Chamberlain house" and "in an area

to the

rear of the defendant real property."

statement

But the agreed

is clear that Chamberlain told a DEA agent that he

-3-

had 100 marihuana

inference

that

plants hidden
marihuana was

"on his
located

property" and
on

the

the property

is

further supported by defendant's guilty plea described in the

agreed

statement as

a plea inter alia to

___________

intent

to distribute

the marihuana

"possession with

found at

the defendant

real property . . . . "

Second, additional evidence connected
to unlawful drug uses

or intended uses.

undercover agents

he had

years, conducted

some of

marihuana

bale by

phone

cocaine (103.75 grams)

triple beam scale,
and

firearms) were

guilty to
found

the negotiations for

from the

Inositol, a how
found on

on the premises.

Claimant,

been selling narcotics

who told
for twenty

purchasing a

defendant premises,

as well as drug

possessing with

the premises

trafficking tools (a

to grow marihuana

the property.

book,

Claimant

intent to distribute
In sum, the

and

pled

the cocaine

evidence showed actual

use of the premises to cultivate marihuana and to store drugs

for

later intended

distribution.

This

was sufficient

to

establish the requisite substantial connection.

Finally, here, where claimant was admittedly in the
narcotics
furtherance

business
of

his

and

had

business,

manifestly used
it was

his

reasonable

home

in

for

the

district court
had paid

to conclude that the

$54,000 for immediately

like the cocaine

found on

marihuana bale claimant

before he was

the premises --

arrested --

would have

been

-4-

stored

at

claimant's

intervened.
relies,

both

Hence,

home
unlike

had

claimant's

the cases

significant actual

use

arrest

upon which
as

well as

not

claimant
intended

future use were adequately established to support forfeiture.

2.

Relying

on

United States
_____________

v.

Certain Real
_____________

Property and Premises Known as 38 Whalers Cove Drive,

_______________________________________________________

954

F.2d 29 (2d Cir. 1992), petition for cert. filed, 60 U.S.L.W.

________________________
3755

(U.S. April

20, 1992)

that the forfeiture of

(No. 91-1682),

claimant argues

his home was disproportionately harsh

for his offense and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

Claimant did

not present

arguments may not

Were we to consider

this argument below,

be raised

for the first

and normally

time on

appeal.

the argument, however, we would

find no

merit in it, for we have recently rejected the Second Circuit

position

that

analysis

and

forfeitures
have

"proportionality

are subject

to

adhered to

our

instead
analysis

is

881(a)(7)."

One Parcel of Real Property,

_____________________________

960 F.2d

Moreover, were

we

approach, there is nothing in

convince

us

that

disproportionate.
F.2d

41

(1st

the

to

accept

forfeiture

1989)

in

that
civil

United States v.
_____________

200, 207

(1st Cir.

the Second

Circuit

the present record which would

United States
_____________
Cir.

position

inappropriate

forfeiture cases under section

1992).

proportionality

was

v. A Parcel of Land, 884

__________________

(rejecting

forfeiture of home and 17.9 acres

unconstitutionally

claim

that

civil

of land from which 80 live

-5-

and

50

dried

marihuana

plants

had

been

seized

was

unconstitutionally harsh).
As for
below),

any double jeopardy claim

(also not raised

we would reject it -- had it been properly preserved

-- for the first and third reasons explained in United States

_____________
v. A Parcel of Land, 884 F.2d at 43-44.
________________
Affirmed summarily pursuant to 1st Cir. R. 27.1.
__________________________________________________
The motion for oral argument is denied.
______________________________________

-6-