United States v. Ronald J. Hoffman

Good Law
83 F.3d 429·1996 WL 183671·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 28589
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 12, 199695-56510California396 words

Opinion

Opinion

83 F.3d 429 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Ronald J. HOFFMAN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-56510. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted April 10, 1996. * Decided April 12, 1996. Before: HALL, THOMPSON, and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Federal prisoner Ronald J. Hoffman appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction for illegally exporting defense technology. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . We review de novo, Doganiere v. United States, 914 F.2d 165, 167 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 940 (1991), and we affirm. 3 Hoffman contends that his conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment because of the prior administrative forfeiture of his automobile used during his crimes. However, because Hoffman concedes that he received adequate notice of the forfeiture but failed…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.