by any person in exchange for a controlled substance in violation of this subchapter, all proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and all moneys, negotiable instruments, and securities used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of this subchapter.... 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). 3 . Upon remand, it is incumbent upon the government to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the forfeited property constitutes drug proceeds either by proving the essential factual elements of 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), or by obtaining a stipulation to that effect from the defendant. The mere fact that the government labels the property as “drug proceeds" is not sufficient. Cf. United States v. Atkins, 834 F.2d 426, 434 (5th Cir.1987); United States v. Stricklin, 591 F.2d 1112, 1117 (5th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 963, 100 S.Ct. 449, 62
holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence holding that once the defendant has demonstrated a prima facie nonfrivolous double jeopardy claim the government carries the burden of establishing that the indictments charge separate crimes holding that the burden of establishing prima facie case of discriminatory treatment may be satisfied by minimal showing recognizing that a plaintiffs burden in establishing a prima facie case is not onerous holding that the double jeopardy clause precludes a second trial once the reviewing court has found the evidence legally insufficient