Opinion · District Court, D. Oregon
United States v. Pearson
United States v. Pearson, 876 F. Supp. 1183 (District Court, D. Oregon 1994)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- District Court, D. Oregon
- Jurisdiction
- Oregon
- Date
- 1994-12-21
- Topic
- general
OPINION AND ORDER ROBERT E. JONES, District Judge: 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 state forfeiture that precedes a criminal prosecution does not constitute double jeopardy barring the federal criminal prosecution (see attached opinions in United States v. Martin Hobart Stanwoodi 872 F.Supp. 791 (D.Or. 1994); and United States v.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Pearson. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Authority status
- pending
OPINION AND ORDER
ROBERT E. JONES, District Judge: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 state forfeiture that precedes a criminal prosecution does not constitute double jeopardy barring the federal criminal prosecution (see attached opinions in United States v. Martin Hobart Stanwoodi 872 F.Supp. 791 (D.Or. 1994); and United States v. Ronald Lynn Branum, 872 F.Supp. 801 (D.Or.1994)).
The defendant presents no special circumstances that would bring her under an exception to the dual sovereignty rule.