United States v. Pearson

D. Oregon

United States v. Pearson

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

CourtDistrict Court, D. Oregon

DecidedDecember 21, 1994

DocketNo. CR 93-223-1-JO; Civ. No. 94-1501-JO

StatusPublished

This text of 876 F. Supp. 1183 (United States v. Pearson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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