United States of America v. Vincent M. Hill Mark A. Tatmon

Ninth Circuit

United States of America v. Vincent M. Hill Mark A. Tatmon

53 F.3d 340, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 22744, 1995 WL 163635

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 3, 1995

Docket94-10222

StatusPublished

This text of 53 F.3d 340 (United States of America v. Vincent M. Hill Mark A. Tatmon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States of America v. Vincent M. Hill Mark A. Tatmon, 53 F.3d 340, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 22744, 1995 WL 163635 (9th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

53 F.3d 340
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
Vincent M. HILL; Mark A. Tatmon, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 94-10222.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 12, 1994.
Submission Vacated Dec. 28, 1994.
Resubmitted March 30, 1995.
Decided April 3, 1995.

Before: HUG, CANBY and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM*

The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars cumulative punishment for carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2119, and for using or carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c)(1). This issue is resolved by this Court's holding in United States v. Martinez, Slip op. 2545 (March 7, 1995). In Martinez, we held that "Congress clearly expressed its intent to subject armed carjackers to punishment under both section 924(c)(1) and section 2119." Slip op. at 2552. Accordingly, such punishment does not offend the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Therefore, the district court's dismissal of Count 2 of defendants' indictment as violative of the Double Jeopardy Clause is REVERSED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

53 F.3d 340
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
Vincent M. HILL; Mark A. Tatmon, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 94-10222.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 12, 1994.
Submission Vacated Dec. 28, 1994.
Resubmitted March 30, 1995.
Decided April 3, 1995.

Before: HUG, CANBY and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM*

The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars cumulative punishment for carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2119, and for using or carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c)(1). This issue is resolved by this Court's holding in United States v. Martinez, Slip op. 2545 (March 7, 1995). In Martinez, we held that "Congress clearly expressed its intent to subject armed carjackers to punishment under both section 924(c)(1) and section 2119." Slip op. at 2552. Accordingly, such punishment does not offend the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Therefore, the district court's dismissal of Count 2 of defendants' indictment as violative of the Double Jeopardy Clause is REVERSED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 F.3d 340, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 22744, 1995 WL 163635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-of-america-v-vincent-m-hill-mark-a-t-ca9-1995.