United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Lowell E. Jackson, Jr., Defendant-appellant.united States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Tarhonne M. Boyd, Defendant-appellant, 67 F.3d 309 (9th Cir. 1995)
Annotate this CaseBefore: SCHROEDER, REINHARDT and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Lowell Jackson Jr. and Tarhonne Boyd appeal the district court's denial of their motion to dismiss the indictment against them on double jeopardy grounds. We affirm.
DISCUSSION
On June 20, 1995, we decided United States v. Brown, 59 F.3d 102 (9th Cir. 1995), in which we held that double jeopardy does not bar a criminal prosecution based on conduct for which prison officials have already imposed administrative discipline. Brown was one of Jackson and Boyd's codefendants, and Jackson and Boyd merely joined in the motion filed by Brown before the district court. They did not advance any additional argument.
Because the question presented by Jackson and Boyd's appeal has already been decided as to their codefendant, we must follow that ruling under the law of the case doctrine. See United States v. Schaff, 948 F.2d 501, 506 (9th Cir. 1991).
AFFIRMED.
The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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.
