United States v. Robert F. Johnson

Good Law
87 F.3d 1324·1996 WL 327103·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 31640
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 12, 199695-35915California696 words

Opinion

Opinion

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NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Robert F. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-35915. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted June 7, 1996. Decided June 12, 1996. 1 Before: BROWNING and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, * District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 Johnson concedes that he did not file a claim for the property or post a bond. In United States v. Cretacci, we held that a criminal prosecution following an administrative forfeiture of unclaimed property does not offend the Double Jeopardy Clause. 62 F.3d 307 (9th Cir.1995), petition for cert. filed, (Feb. 13, 1996) (No. 95-7955). 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 is abandoned as a matter of law and the forfeiture is…

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.