United States v. Edward Eugene Allen

91 F.3d 155 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Edward Eugene ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 94-30393. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued Sept. 15, 1995. Submission Withheld Sept. 15, 1996. Submitted Oct. 2, 1995. Decided July 3, 1996. Before: SCHROEDER, REINHARDT, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 We deal briefly with the contentions not disposed of in the published opinion filed today in this appeal, and affirm on all. CHALLENGES TO THE UNDERLYING CONVICTIONS 3 Allen contends that the double jeopardy clause bars prosecution on two counts because the counts involved conduct that had previously been the subject of state court prosecutions. In fact only count 47 is related to any prior prosecution. Regarding that count, double jeopardy principles do not bar a successive prosecution by a different sovereign, absent collusion, which did not occur here. See Bartkus v. Illinois, 359…