FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

APR 5 2000

PATRICK FISHER
Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

TAMMY CLANTON, doing business as United Pharmaceutical/Nutri-Slim, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation,

		Petitioner,

v.

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION,

		Respondent.	

No.  99-9521
(No. M4-96-2019)
(Petition for Review)	

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BALDOCK, BRISCOE, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

	Appellants seek review of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA’s) denial of their petition for remission or mitigation of administrative forfeitures of currency and cashier’s checks.  They contend that the forfeitures cannot stand because no criminal charges were filed against them or in connection with the transactions leading to the initial seizures of the monies and because probable cause is lacking to connect the monies with any illegal transactions.  
	We have jurisdiction over this appeal by virtue of 21 U.S.C. § 877.  The scope of our review is quite narrow.  It “is limited to assuring that the DEA complied with statutory and procedural requirements.”  Yskamp v. DEA, 163 F.3d 767, 770 (3d Cir. 1998).  In other words, the administrative denial of a petition for remission or mitigation is not subject to judicial review on the merits.  See United States v. One Parcel of Property, 51 F.3d 117, 119 (8th Cir. 1995).  Appellants have not demonstrated that statutory and procedural requirements were not met.  Their contention that they did not receive adequate notice of the forfeitures was presented to and rejected by the federal district court in a related case.  
	Accordingly, the petition for review of the DEA’s decision to deny appellant’s petition for remission or mitigation is DENIED.  

				Entered for the Court

				Carlos F. Lucero 
				Circuit Judge