United States v. Donald Pomeroy Roberts, Jr.

67 F.3d 310, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 33054, 1995 WL 576861
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 29, 1995
Docket95-35190
StatusUnpublished

This text of 67 F.3d 310 (United States v. Donald Pomeroy Roberts, Jr.) 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 v. Donald Pomeroy Roberts, Jr., 67 F.3d 310, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 33054, 1995 WL 576861 (9th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

67 F.3d 310

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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-Appellee,
v.
Donald Pomeroy ROBERTS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 95-35190.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 18, 1995.*
Decided Sept. 29, 1995.

Before: BROWNING, GOODWIN and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

Donald Pomeroy Roberts, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 motion challenging his criminal conviction on double jeopardy grounds. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255, and we affirm.

Roberts contends that his criminal conviction violated the multiple prosecution and multiple punishment prongs of the Double Jeopardy Clause because jeopardy first attached in the civil and administrative forfeiture proceedings instituted against him. We disagree. Because Roberts pleaded guilty in the criminal proceeding prior to entering into a settlement agreement in the forfeiture proceedings, his criminal conviction is not subject to attack on double jeopardy grounds. See United States v. Faber, 57 F.3d 873, 874-75 (9th Cir.1995); United States v. Barton, 46 F.3d 51, 52 (9th Cir.1995).

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

**

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

Related

United States v. Roy L. Barton
46 F.3d 51 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)
United States v. Paul Lee Faber
57 F.3d 873 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 F.3d 310, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 33054, 1995 WL 576861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-donald-pomeroy-roberts-jr-ca9-1995.