United States v. Wayne R. Naplin

97 F.3d 1462 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Wayne R. NAPLIN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 96-35177. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 10, 1996. * Decided Sept. 12, 1996. Before: FLETCHER, BRUNETTI and JOHN T. NOONAN, Jr., Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Wayne R. Naplin, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his criminal conviction on double jeopardy grounds. We affirm. 3 Naplin contends that his conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because he had already been punished for the same conduct through prior federal civil forfeiture proceedings. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Ursery, 116 S.Ct. 2135 (1996). 4 Naplin next contends that his conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause based on prior state forfeiture proceedings. He argues that the dual sovereignty doctrine does not preclude his…