[T][U] United States v. Comisar [T][U] United States v. Comisar

[T][U] United States v. Comisar

98 F.3d 1347, 1996.C09.40903

    • 0,99 €
    • 0,99 €

Publisher Description

MEMORANDUM* Federal prisoner Steven Robert Comisar appeals pro se the district court's denial of his second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Comisar contends the district court erred when it denied him relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We review de novo, Frazer v. United States, 18 F.3d 778, 781 (9th Cir. 1994), and affirm. The Supreme Court recently held that in rem civil forfeitures are not punishment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. United States v. Ursery, 135 L. Ed. 2d 549, 116 S. Ct. 2135, 2149 (1996) (reversing $405,089.23 in United States Currency). Consequently, Comisar's challenge to his conviction fails. See id. To the extent that Comisar contends that the government unlawfully seized the Corvette, Comisar does not challenge his sentence and therefore may not raise that contention by section 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

GENRE
Professional & Technical
RELEASED
1996
11 October
LANGUAGE
EN
English
LENGTH
1
Page
PUBLISHER
LawApp Publishers
SIZE
53.8
KB

More Books by Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals

United States v. Boone United States v. Boone
2000
[T][U] Hartman v. Mccarthy [T][U] Hartman v. Mccarthy
1996
[T][U] Butcher v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. [T][U] Butcher v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.
1996
[T][U] Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Castetter [T][U] Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Castetter
1996
[U] Haskins v. Farmers Home Administration [U] Haskins v. Farmers Home Administration
1996
[T][U] Likes v. Babbitt [T][U] Likes v. Babbitt
1996