United States v. Arthur Thomas Mendez

91 F.3d 156 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Arthur Thomas MENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-56504. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 9, 1996. * Decided July 18, 1996. 1 Before: FERNANDEZ and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges and MERHIGE, District Judge. ** 2 MEMORANDUM *** 3 Arthur Thomas Mendez, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. In his § 2255 motion, Mendez challenged his 1992 conviction of drug offenses. He claimed that his conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because there had been a prior civil forfeiture. We have jurisdiction and we affirm. 4 As the Supreme Court recently held, civil forfeiture actions pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a)(6), drug proceeds, 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a)(7), facilitation of a drug offense, or 18 U.S.C. § 981 (a)(1)(A), money laundering, do not constitute…