From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Villareal

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Jan 27, 1995
875 F. Supp. 1437 (D. Or. 1995)

Opinion

No. CR 93-286-JO., Civ. No. 94-1540-JO.

January 27, 1995.


ORDER


The court has received defendant's motion to vacate the sentence with supporting memorandum.

The defendant's motion is denied. This court has recently ruled that a federal criminal conviction that precedes a judgment of forfeiture is not subject to challenge on double jeopardy grounds. See United States v. Martin Hobart Stanwood, 872 F. Supp. 791 (D.Or. 1994) (copy attached). In this case, defendant entered a guilty plea to the criminal charges on April 13, 1994. His interest in the seized property was terminated by a judgment of forfeiture dated July 8, 1994.

Under these circumstances, the criminal conviction does not constitute double jeopardy.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Villareal

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Jan 27, 1995
875 F. Supp. 1437 (D. Or. 1995)
Case details for

U.S. v. Villareal

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Abelardo VILLAREAL, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Jan 27, 1995

Citations

875 F. Supp. 1437 (D. Or. 1995)

Citing Cases

Ragin v. U.S.

However, this Court finds that jeopardy attaches when the final judgment of forfeiture is entered, and not…

McGowan v. U.S.

In a civil forfeiture proceeding, this Court finds that jeopardy attaches when the final judgment of…