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
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.