United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Lyle J. Hitchcock, Defendant-appellant, 124 F.3d 214 (9th Cir. 1997)

 Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 124 F.3d 214 (9th Cir. 1997) Submitted Sept. 8, 1997**Decided Sept. 15, 1997

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Nos. CV-95-01401-ER, CR-90-498(A)ER; Edward Rafeedie, District Judge, Presiding.

Before: HALL, BRUNETTI, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM* 

Federal prisoner Lyle J. Hitchcock appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence for his guilty plea conviction to conspiracy to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute it in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.

Hitchcock contends that his criminal conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause due to the prior forfeiture of his car and personal items. Forfeiture proceedings, however, were never initiated against Hitchcock's property, and therefore, there was no violation of double jeopardy. See United States v. Wong, 62 F.3d 1212, 1214 (9th Cir. 1995).1 

AFFIRMED.

 **

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See 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

 1

Hitchcock raises a new issue for the first time on appeal concerning the voluntariness of his plea. Because this issue was not addressed by the district court, we will not review it. United States v. Castro, 887 F.2d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 1989)

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.