United States v. Henry E. Singleton

92 F.3d 1195 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Henry E. SINGLETON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-16394. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 12, 1996. * Decided July 26, 1996. Before: WOOD, JR., ** CANBY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM *** 2 Henry E. Singleton appeals the district court's denial of his motion, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , to vacate his conviction and sentence. Singleton argues that his conviction and resulting 181 month prison sentence were imposed in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution since he also suffered the civil forfeiture of his property pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981 and 21 U.S.C. § 881 . We affirm. I. 3 It is well-established that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits the imposition of multiple punishments for the same offense. United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989) (" 'If there is anything settled…