United States v. William Richard Betz

87 F.3d 1323 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. William Richard BETZ, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-36124. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 7, 1996. * Decided June 21, 1996. 1 Before: BROWNING and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, ** District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM *** 3 Betz concedes he received notice of the administrative forfeiture and did not contest it. Thus, his double jeopardy argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Cretacci, 62 F.3d 307 (9th Cir.1995), petition for cert. filed, (Feb. 13, 1996) (No. 95-7955) (criminal prosecution following administrative forfeiture of unclaimed property does not offend Double Jeopardy Clause). 4 Neither Betz's declaration of interest in the property nor the fact that the property was seized from his possession render Cretacci inapplicable. "There is no authority for finding that anything less than a legally sufficient…