United States v. Pearson

D. Oregon

United States v. Pearson

876 F. Supp. 1183, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20190

District Court, D. Oregon·Decided December 21, 1994·No. No. CR 93-223-1-JO; Civ. No. 94-1501-JO·Published

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER

ROBERT E. JONES, District Judge:

The court has received defendant’s motion to vacate the sentence with supporting memorandum. '

The defendant’s motion is denied. This court has recently ruled that a state forfeiture that precedes a criminal prosecution does not constitute double jeopardy barring the federal criminal prosecution (see attached opinions in United States v. Martin Hobart Stanwoodi 872 F.Supp. 791 (D.Or. 1994); and United States v. Ronald Lynn Branum, 872 F.Supp. 801 (D.Or.1994)).

The defendant presents no special circumstances that would bring her under an exception to the dual sovereignty rule.

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

OPINION AND ORDER

ROBERT E. JONES, District Judge:

The court has received defendant’s motion to vacate the sentence with supporting memorandum. '

The defendant’s motion is denied. This court has recently ruled that a state forfeiture that precedes a criminal prosecution does not constitute double jeopardy barring the federal criminal prosecution (see attached opinions in United States v. Martin Hobart Stanwoodi 872 F.Supp. 791 (D.Or. 1994); and United States v. Ronald Lynn Branum, 872 F.Supp. 801 (D.Or.1994)).

The defendant presents no special circumstances that would bring her under an exception to the dual sovereignty rule.

United States v. Pearson, 876 F. Supp. 1183, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20190 (D. Or. 1994).

Pincite

876 F. Supp. 1183 (United States v. Pearson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related