deadlines and explaining that "the only protection a property owner had against government delay was the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment ...,” yet courts declined to find due process violations despite lengthy delays in commencing forfeiture actions). 7 . Cassella, supra note 6, at 125. 8 . Cassella, supra note 6, at 144. 9 . But cf. United States v. One 1991 Ford Mustang LX, VIN 1FACP44E6MF151861, 909 F.Supp. 831 (D.Colo.1996) (denying government’s request for retroactive extension of time limit and refusing to consider whether government had good cause for request when government filed complaint for forfeiture two days after expiration of filing deadline imposed by 21 U.S.C. § 888(c)); United States v. One White 1987 Tempest Sport Boat Named “El Matador”, 726 F.Supp. 7 (<HOLDING>). 10 . See United States v. Borromeo, 945 F.2d
holding that an amendment passed two years into a 10year automatic extension period was not effective until the 10year extension period expired and stating that to hold otherwise would render the extension provision meaningless holding that government was not entitled to extension of time limit under 21 usc  8811 to rectify oneday delay in filing where government was aware of the circumstances contributing to the delay prior to the expiration of the time limit and could have requested an extension before the deadline expired holding that an extension of time in which to serve process may be granted despite the absence of good cause holding that time limit for filing petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional holding that the circuit judge did not have the authority to extend the thirtyday time limit for filing a notice of appeal