United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Vernon Van Buren, Defendant-appellant, 108 F.3d 340 (9th Cir. 1997)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 108 F.3d 340 (9th Cir. 1997) Submitted Feb. 18, 1997. *Decided Feb. 20, 1997

Before: ALARCN, CANBY and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM^**

Vernon Van Buren appeals the district court's order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds. We affirm.

Van Buren contends that his criminal prosecution violates the Double Jeopardy Clause because he has already been punished for the same conduct through the revocation of his state parole. "Our prior case law establishes unambiguously that double jeopardy does not preclude criminal prosecution for conduct which also serves as the basis for a parole ... revocation." United States v. Soto-Olivas, 44 F.3d 788, 789 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted).

The district court properly declared this appeal to be frivolous, thereby allowing the court to retain jurisdiction during the pendency of this appeal. See United States v. LaMere, 951 F.2d 1106 (9th Cir. 1991).

AFFIRMED.

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 cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.