not comply with the more informative notice requirements of customs law. See supra at 9122. We do not consider here whether the notice furnished under customs law comports with due process and reserve judgment on that question. All we decide here is that the notice used by the INS does not. We also reserve judgment as to what process, in addition to reasonable notice, is due in an administrative forfeiture context. To the extent, however, that out-of-circuit cases suggest that notice of the forfeiture proceedings prescribed by statute is a property owner's only due process interest in an administrative forfeiture proceeding, that argument is clearly inconsistent with Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 1019, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970), and we decline to follow such cases (<HOLDING>). 21 . See supra Pari III. 22 . Rule 23
holding that constitution requires  an opportunity  granted at a meaningful time and a meaningful manner  for a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case recognizing that the essential requisites of procedural due process are notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard holding that procedural due process requires adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard holding plaintiff must prove that he or she was deprived of  an opportunity  granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner for a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case holding that due process requires at a minimum an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner