With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". States v. Tilley, 18 F.3d 295, 300 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 574, 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994). Even if the automobiles were not drug proceeds, John Buchanan's double jeopardy claim must fail. The record shows that John Buchanan did not contest the forfeiture of the two automobiles, and was not a party to the proceedings. Where a defendant is a non-party to a forfeiture proceeding, and does not assert ownership over the property, he or she has not been placed in jeopardy for the purposes of double jeopardy analysis. See United States v. Gonzalez, No. 94-60342, 1996 WL 30687 at *2 (5th Cir., Jan. 26, 1996) (stating that the “defendant must be a party to the forfeiture proceeding for jeopardy to attach”); United States v. Arreola-Ramos, 60 F.3d 188, 193 (5th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); accord United States v. Torres, 28 F.3d 1463,

A: holding that information was not fatally defective because while defendants name did not appear in the charging part of the information it did clearly appear in the caption and in the verification of the charge by the district attorney
B: holding that as arreola did not appear and contest the forfeiture he was never in jeopardy
C: holding that double jeopardy clause did not apply to forfeiture proceeding before the court
D: holding that the trial courts dismissal of the charges after jeopardy had attached based on the prosecution witnesses failure to appear was not an acquittal and therefore double jeopardy did not prevent the court from reconsidering its decision and reinstating the charges
B.