United States v. David Albert Colvert

98 F.3d 1347 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. David Albert COLVERT, Defendant-Appellant. No. 96-35330. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Oct. 7, 1996. * Decided Oct. 10, 1996. Before: BEEZER, KOZINSKI, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 David Albert Colvert, a federal prisoner, 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 have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , and we affirm. 3 Colvert contends that his criminal conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because he had already been punished for the same conduct through prior federal administrative forfeiture proceedings. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Ursery, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 2138-49 (1996). 4 Colvert additionally contends that his criminal conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause…