United States v. James A. Patton

91 F.3d 157 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. James A. PATTON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-56724. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 9, 1996. * Decided July 15, 1996. Before: HUG, Chief Judge, SCHROEDER and POOLE, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 James A. Patton appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Patton contends that the district court erred by denying his § 2255 motion because: (1) the administrative forfeiture of his property and his criminal conviction constituted double punishment in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, and (2) counsel's failure to contest the administrative forfeiture constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we review de novo. See Frazer v. United States, 18 F.3d 778, 781 (9th Cir.1994). We affirm. 3 The forfeiture of property pursuant to 21 U.S.C.…