Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Ramirez, 96-50006 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 96-50006 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jul. 17, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-50006 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MOSES RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-95-CV-210 - - - - - - - - - - July 9, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Moses Ramirez, #60364-080, appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate, set aside
More
                 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                             No. 96-50006
                           Summary Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                           Plaintiff-Appellee,


versus

MOSES RAMIREZ,

                                           Defendant-Appellant.


                         - - - - - - - - - -
           Appeal from the United States District Court
                 for the Western District of Texas
                        USDC No. W-95-CV-210
                         - - - - - - - - - -
                             July 9, 1996
Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Moses Ramirez, #60364-080, appeals from the district court’s

order denying his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his

sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.    He argues his criminal

prosecution following the administrative forfeiture of $3,000

violated the Fifth Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy.

Ramirez is procedurally barred from asserting a double jeopardy

claim.   See United States v. Frady, 
456 U.S. 152
, 
102 S. Ct. 1584
     *
        Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule
47.5.4.
                           No. 96-50006
                               - 2 -

(1982).   Under United States v. Arreola-Ramos, 
60 F.3d 188
(5th

Cir. 1995), there can be no double jeopardy claim because he

failed to contest the forfeiture.   
Id., 60 F.3d
at 192.

     AFFIRMED.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer