Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

76 F.3d 389

Docket No. 95-30256.

United States v. Hyde

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted Jan. 23, 1996.* Decided Jan. 26, 1996.

This page is marked noindex.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1996-01-26

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1996

1 district ·

Applies 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on United States v. Cretacci · United States v. Banks

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1996-01-26

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

Before: ALARCON, HALL and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges.

¶1

MEMORANDUM…

¶2

Perry Hyde appeals his conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, for five drug related charges in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)(D) & (a)(1), 844(a), and 853. Hyde's contention that his prosecution was barred by double jeopardy arising from a prior uncontested administrative forfeiture of his property is foreclosed by this court's decision in United States v. Cretacci, 62 F.3d 307 (9th Cir.1995). Accordingly, his conviction and sentence is

¶3

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

/76/f3d/389 · .json · Public domain