Opinion filed December 23, 2010

                                                                       In The

  Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

                                                         No. 11-10-00152-CV

                                                    __________

                        $1,803.11 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY

                                (TOMMY LEE MONROE), Appellant

                                                             V.

                                      STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                   On Appeal from the 32nd District Court

                                                             Nolan County, Texas

                                                      Trial Court Cause No. 19023  

                                            M E M O R A N D U M    O P I N I O N       

            This is a restricted appeal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 30 from the trial court’s no-answer default judgment forfeiting the $1,803.11 as contraband.  We affirm.

            On appeal, Tommy Lee Monroe argues that Officer Mark Webb had insufficient evidence that the money came from the sale of controlled substances.  He also contends that, at the time the money was seized, it was not found in proximity to the drugs or the drug paraphernalia and that there was no positive nexus between the money and any criminal activity.

            A restricted appeal, formerly appeal by writ of error, is available to a party who neither participated in the hearing that resulted in the judgment being complained of nor filed any timely post-judgment motion, request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, or a notice of appeal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a).  Rule 30.  A restricted appeal is a direct attack on the trial court’s judgment and is limited to errors that are apparent on the face of the record.  Alexander v. Lynda’s Boutique, 134 S.W.3d 845, 848 (Tex. 2004); Quaestor Invs., Inc. v. State of Chiapas, 997 S.W.2d 226, 227 (Tex. 1999).

            Monroe’s arguments are not apparent on the face of the record before us.  Each contention has been considered, and each is overruled.

            The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

                                                                                                PER CURIAM

December 23, 2010

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.