United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Jose Sandoval; Jesus Sandoval, Defendants-appellants, 99 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 1996)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 99 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 1996) Submitted Sept. 20, 1996. Decided Sept. 30, 1996

Before: SCHROEDER and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER,*  District Judge.

MEMORANDUM** 

Defendants Jose and Jesus Sandoval appeal the denial of their motions for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. They contend that their convictions on drug-related charges violated double jeopardy because of the prior civil forfeitures of their vehicles and currency.

This appeal is controlled by United States v. Ursery, Nos. 95-345, 95-346, 1996 U.S.S. Ct. WL 340815 at * 14 (U.S. June 24, 1996), where the Supreme Court held that civil forfeitures are "neither 'punishment' nor criminal for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause." Therefore, we need not address defendants' claim that because they did not receive proper notice of the forfeiture proceedings, they could have "abandoned" their property within the meaning of United States v. Cretacci, 62 F.3d 307, 310-11 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 2528 (1996). Nor must we reach the other issues raised on appeal.

We AFFIRM.

 *

The Honorable Rudi M. Brewster, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation

 **

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.