United States v. Martin Allen Johnson

79 F.3d 1155 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Martin Allen JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-35182. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 12, 1996. * Decided March 18, 1996. Before: GOODWIN, WIGGINS, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Martin Allen Johnson appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion 1 and motion for reconsideration. Johnson contends that his conviction violates the Double Jeopardy Clause because it is based on the same acts that resulted in forfeiture proceedings in Oregon state courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 , 2255. We review de novo, Sanchez v. United States, 50 F.3d 1448, 1451 (9th Cir.1995), and affirm. 3 The United States may "punish the same conduct already punished by one of the several states without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause." United States v. Figueroa-Soto, 938…