United States v. Villareal
This text of 875 F. Supp. 1437 (United States v. Villareal) 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.
Opinion
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Abelardo VILLAREAL, Defendant.
United States District Court, D. Oregon.
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 federal criminal conviction that precedes a judgment of forfeiture is not subject to challenge on double jeopardy grounds. See United States v. Martin Hobart Stanwood, 872 F.Supp. 791 (D.Or.1994) (copy attached). In this case, defendant entered a guilty plea to the criminal charges on April 13, 1994. His interest in the seized property was terminated by a judgment of forfeiture dated July 8, 1994. Under these circumstances, the criminal conviction does not constitute double jeopardy.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
875 F. Supp. 1437, 1995 WL 79923, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-villareal-ord-1995.