United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Steven Robert Comisar, Defendant-appellant, 98 F.3d 1347 (9th Cir. 1996)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 98 F.3d 1347 (9th Cir. 1996) Submitted Oct. 7, 1996. *DecidedOct. 11, 1996

Before: BEEZER, KOZINSKI, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Federal prisoner Steven Robert Comisar appeals pro se the district court's denial of his second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Comisar contends the district court erred when it denied him relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We review de novo, Frazer v. United States, 18 F.3d 778, 781 (9th Cir. 1994), and affirm.

The Supreme Court recently held that in rem civil forfeitures are not punishment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. United States v. Ursery, 116 S. Ct. 2135, 2149 (1996) (reversing $405,089.23 in United States Currency). Consequently, Comisar's challenge to his conviction fails. See id. To the extent that Comisar contends that the government unlawfully seized the Corvette, Comisar does not challenge his sentence and therefore may not raise that contention by section 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

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.