and we will therefore not address the merits of his argument. See Boyles, 57 F.3d at 549 (citing eases for the proposition that summary arguments unsupported by authority are waived). King next argues regarding his drug house conviction that the government failed to prove that he both opened and maintained a drug house. However, the statute makes it unlawful to “knowingly open or maintain” a drug house. 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1) (emphasis added). King next argues, apparently against his attorney’s advice, that he was subject to double jeopardy based on the administrative forfeiture of his car and some currency. His attorney’s own analysis amply demonstrates the futility of the argument, as does the recent case of United States v. Ursery, - U.S. - , 116 S.Ct. 2135, 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996) (<HOLDING>). King further contends that he cannot be
holding that forfeiture is not barred by the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment because it involves neither two criminal trials nor two criminal punishments holding that civil forfeitures are neither punishment nor criminal for purposes of the double jeopardy clause holding that unlike under the federal constitution a civil forfeiture is punishment under the new mexico double jeopardy clause holding that the dismissal of criminal charges for evidentiary insufficiency is an acquittal for purposes of the double jeopardy clause holding that a delinquency proceeding places a juvenile in jeopardy for purposes of the double jeopardy clause