United States v. William T. Barnes

Ninth Circuit

United States v. William T. Barnes

107 F.3d 17, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 7241, 1997 WL 55381

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 7, 1997

Docket96-55006

StatusUnpublished

This text of 107 F.3d 17 (United States v. William T. Barnes) 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. William T. Barnes, 107 F.3d 17, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 7241, 1997 WL 55381 (9th Cir. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

107 F.3d 17

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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

No. 96-55006.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 5, 1997.*
Decided Feb. 7, 1997.

Before: CANBY, HAWKINS and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

Federal prisoner William Barnes appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence for his conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute in excess of five kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 & 841(a)(1). First, Barnes contends that jeopardy attached in prior civil forfeiture proceedings, and therefore his criminal conviction was double jeopardy. Barnes claim is precluded, however, by the United States Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Ursery, 116 S.Ct. 2135 (1997).

Second, Barnes contends that he was subjected to sentencing entrapment when government agents allowed him to buy a larger quantity of narcotics than he was able to afford. In his direct appeal, however, this court noted that Barnes raised the issue of sentencing entrapment, and in a published decision, this court found "[h]is argument is ... without merit." United States v. Barnes, 993 F.2d 680, 684 (9th Cir.1993). We are bound by that finding, and the district court is

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

107 F.3d 17

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.
William T. BARNES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 96-55006.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 5, 1997.*
Decided Feb. 7, 1997.

Before: CANBY, HAWKINS and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

Federal prisoner William Barnes appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence for his conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute in excess of five kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 & 841(a)(1). First, Barnes contends that jeopardy attached in prior civil forfeiture proceedings, and therefore his criminal conviction was double jeopardy. Barnes claim is precluded, however, by the United States Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Ursery, 116 S.Ct. 2135 (1997).

Second, Barnes contends that he was subjected to sentencing entrapment when government agents allowed him to buy a larger quantity of narcotics than he was able to afford. In his direct appeal, however, this court noted that Barnes raised the issue of sentencing entrapment, and in a published decision, this court found "[h]is argument is ... without merit." United States v. Barnes, 993 F.2d 680, 684 (9th Cir.1993). We are bound by that finding, and the district court is

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 F.3d 17, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 7241, 1997 WL 55381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-william-t-barnes-ca9-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack