United States v. Steven R. Smith

76 F.3d 390 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Steven R. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-30079. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Jan. 9, 1996. * Decided Jan. 17, 1996. Before: SNEED, HALL, and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Steven R. Smith appeals the imposition of a provision, in his plea agreement, ordering forfeiture of $50,000. Smith also contends that his conviction or in the alternative, the forfeiture provision, violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review both the legality of a sentence and a double jeopardy claim de novo. United States v. Redmond, 69 F.3d 979, 980 (9th Cir.1995) (sentence); United States v. Jernigan, 60 F.3d 562, 563 (9th Cir.1995) (double jeopardy). 3 In January 1994, Smith was indicted on six felony drug charges. 1 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Smith pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy…