Francis Ravel v. United States

15 F.3d 1088 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Francis RAVEL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. No. 93-55260. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 10, 1993. * Decided Feb. 2, 1994. MEMORANDUM *** 1 Before: REINHARDT and LEAVY, Circuit Judges, and KING, ** District Judge. 2 Francis Ravel appeals from the district court's denial of his motion to vacate conviction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 , arguing, inter alia, that the conviction was based on an improper "offense splitting" and should be set aside on the grounds of either double jeopardy or collateral estoppel. The government contends that Ravel is barred from asserting this issue now, either because he previously raised it on direct appeal, see United States v. Ravel, 930 F.2d 721 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 308 (1991), or because his failure to do so constitutes a waiver of that right. In the alternative, the government argues that there…