United States v. Douglas J. Hill

Good Law
95 F.3d 1159·1996 WL 481702·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 38268
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 26, 199696-15328California236 words

Opinion

Opinion

95 F.3d 1159 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Douglas J. HILL, Defendant-Appellant. No. 96-15328. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 12, 1996. * Decided Aug. 26, 1996. Before: BROWNING, SCHROEDER, and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Douglas J. Hill appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his criminal conviction on double jeopardy grounds. We affirm the district court because Hill's contention that his criminal conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause since he had already been punished for the same conduct through prior seizure of his personal property is foreclosed by United States v. Ursery, 116 S.Ct. 2135 (1996). AFFIRMED. 1 * The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4 ** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.