Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting govt.'s motion for summary judgment in civil action seeking forfeiture of defendant's home, which govt. claimed played role in underlying charged offense and was purchased through proceeds of defendant's illegal business of selling smuggled Cuban cigars. Govt. satisfied relevant five-year limitations period where two of three incidents, which involved police discovery of Cuban cigars in defendant's home, occurred during relevant time period. Fact that police discovered Cuban cigars at other time beyond limitations period was irrelevant. Moreover, fact that defendant had deposited far more money into bank account than what could be attributable to his legitimate sources of income was sufficient to support instant forfeiture order where defendant made mortgage payments on home from said account.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss his indictment on charge of illegal re-entry into U.S. after having been deported, even though defendant challenged his initial 1994 deportation order, which had been entered in absentia, on ground that he had never received notice of 1994 deportation hearing. Defendant failed to establish any of three requirements set forth in section 1326 for setting aside 1994 deportation order, where defendant: (1) failed to file motion to reopen deportation proceeding to assert instant claim; (2) failed to show that he was deprived of opportunity to file habeas proceeding to review immigration judge's legal rulings; and (3) failed to establish viable due process claim in his contention that 1994 deportation order deprived him of opportunity to seek voluntary departure.