United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Luis Palacios Amaya, Defendant-appellant, 67 F.3d 309 (9th Cir. 1995)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 67 F.3d 309 (9th Cir. 1995) Submitted Sept. 18, 1995. *Decided Sept. 29, 1995

Before: BROWNING, GOODWIN, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM^**

Luis Felipe Palacios-Amaya appeals the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss a criminal indictment on double jeopardy grounds. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Palacios-Amaya contends that the criminal charges should be dismissed because he has already been subjected to punishment for the same offenses through the government's uncontested administrative forfeiture proceedings. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Cretacci, No. 94-10235, slip op. 9565, 9571 (9th Cir. Aug. 4, 1995), in which we held that an administrative forfeiture of unclaimed property does not constitute punishment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.

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.