United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Geoffrey David Hill, Defendant-appellant, 94 F.3d 653 (9th Cir. 1996)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 94 F.3d 653 (9th Cir. 1996)

Submitted Aug. 5, 1996. *Decided Aug. 12, 1996


Before: WRIGHT, BEEZER and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

David Hill appeals the district court's denial of his motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

We review the district court's denial of Hill's § 2255 motion de novo. United States v. Roberts, 5 F.3d 365, 368 (9th Cir. 1993). Hill argues that the civil forfeitures of his property pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a) (1) (A) and his criminal conviction subjected him to double punishment in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Supreme Court recently held that in rem civil forfeitures pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a) (1) (A) do not constitute "punishment" for the purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. United States v. Ursery, 116 S. Ct. 2135 (1996). This decision forecloses Hill's double jeopardy challenge.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision on the briefs and record, 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 used by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3