United States v. Rodger Joel Aldridge

81 F.3d 170 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Rodger Joel ALDRIDGE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-10219. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Feb. 12, 1996. Decided March 8, 1996. 1 Before: CANBY and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges, and COLLINS, District Judge. * 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 We decide this case on alternative and independent grounds. 4 First, forfeiture of the firearms and silencers could not amount to double jeopardy, as Aldridge argues, because the forfeiture is not punitive in nature. Second, even if it were, there would be no double jeopardy because Aldridge abandoned the firearms. 5 The first point is controlled by United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354 (1984). The Court held that "Congress viewed § 924(d) forfeiture as a remedial civil sanction rather than a criminal punishment." Id. at 364. The Court understood the congressional purpose to be…