United States v. Melvin Neal Huntley

87 F.3d 1324 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Melvin Neal HUNTLEY, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-35966. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 7, 1996. * Decided June 12, 1996. 1 Before: BROWNING and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, ** District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM *** 3 Huntley concedes that he received notice of the administrative forfeiture and did not contest it. Thus, his double jeopardy claim 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 an administrative forfeiture of unclaimed property does not offend Double Jeopardy Clause); see also, United States v. Castro, 78 F.3d 453, 456-57 (9th Cir.1996) ("There is no authority for finding that anything less than a legally sufficient claim and bond precludes the government from determining that the property…