103 F.3d 142: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Wayne R. Heim, Defendant-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 103 F.3d 142
Submitted Dec. 2, 1996.*Decided Dec. 06, 1996
Before: SNEED, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Wayne R. Heim, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction for conspiring to distribute a controlled substance (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(3) & 846) and traveling in aid of racketeering (18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3)). Heim contends his federal conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause based on the previous state forfeiture of his property. We review de novo a district court's decision on a section 2255 motion. Sanchez v. United States, 50 F.3d 1448, 1451-52 (9th Cir.1995). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and we affirm.
Even assuming Heim could show that the dual sovereignty doctrine does not preclude his double jeopardy argument because the state prosecution was a "sham" for the federal prosecution or because the federal government was a "tool" for the state, see Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 123-24 (1959), his double jeopardy claim is nonetheless foreclosed by United States v. Ursery, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 2147 (1996) (civil forfeiture does not constitute punishment for double jeopardy purposes).
The district court's order denying Heim's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is therefore
Heim's "motion to supplement authority" is construed as a Rule 28(j) letter and is ordered filed