twenty days of such seizure.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(d)(1). Although this is a question of first impression in the courts of appeals, a number of district courts have published opinions addressing this very question. See, e.g., United States v. Assorted Firearms, 201 F.Supp.2d 496, 498 (D.Md.2002) (noting that “where ... administrative proceedings are timely instituted, a subsequent judicial action need not be instituted within 120 days of the seizure”); United States v. Sixty Firearms, 186 F.Supp.2d 538, 545 (M.D.Pa.2002) (stating that administrative proceedings would be foiled by a process requiring the judicial action to be commenced within the same 120-day period); United States v. Miscellaneous Firearms, Explosives, Destructive Devices & Ammunition, 150 F.Supp.2d 988, 992 (C.D.Ill.2001) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Twelve Firearms, 16
holding that a california habeas petition is timely if filed within a reasonable time holding that the charge was timely when filed within the statute of limitations period even though served after the period holding that an action for consequential damages to property whether the action is brought in contract or in tort is an action for injury to property within the threeyear statute of limitations holding that as long as alleged breach of a continuing duty occurred within six years of the filing of the lawsuit the claim is timely holding that a forfeiture action is timely so long as at least an administrative action is filed within the 120day statutory period