United States v. Imran A. Mir

89 F.3d 847 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Imran A. MIR, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-10093, 95-10094. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted June 13, 1996. Decided June 27, 1996. 1 Before: SCHROEDER and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges, and FITZGERALD, * District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 Property allegedly belonging to defendant Imran Mir was seized in early January 1991, during several searches conducted pursuant to warrants issued by one or more municipal court magistrates. Although the searches were conducted by state officers, a United States Customs Special Agent participated in one of the searches. The property was subsequently forfeited in a state proceeding brought pursuant to California law. 4 Defendant was later indicted in federal court on various drug charges and, still later, on money laundering charges. 5 Defendant moved to dismiss the indictments on double jeopardy grounds.…