United States v. Lyman Hollingsworth

81 F.3d 171 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Lyman HOLLINGSWORTH, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-30228. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 6, 1996. Decided March 27, 1996. Before: FLETCHER, JOHN T. NOONAN, Jr. and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 Lyman Hollingsworth appeals from the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis seeking to void the judgment of criminal forfeiture entered against him in September 1989. He contends that the forfeiture was procedurally deficient under Rules 7, 11, and 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and that it constituted a second punishment in violation of the double jeopardy clause. 3 We affirm. BACKGROUND 4 On May 23, 1989, Hollingsworth was charged in a one-count information with illegally dispensing a prescription controlled substance (phendimetrazine) for other than legitimate medical…