United States v. Steven Good

85 F.3d 638 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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-Appellant, v. Steven GOOD, Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-30102. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Jan. 12, 1996. Submission Vacated Jan. 19, 1996. Resubmitted May 6, 1996. Decided May 8, 1996. Before: BROWNING and CANBY, Circuit Judges, and REA, * District Judge. MEMORANDUM ** We conclude that the superseding indictment was not barred by the prior consent judgment for forfeiture and therefore reverse the order granting Good's motion to dismiss the indictment and remand for further proceedings. The forfeiture proceeding was based solely upon alleged use of the property to commit or facilitate the commission of offenses in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 . The complaint for forfeiture expressly so alleges. Nothing in the Warrant of Arrest In Rem, the lis pendens, or the consent judgment expanded the basis for the forfeiture alleged in the…