United States v. $405,089.23 U.S. Currency
9th Cir.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2001United States v. O'Dell 6th Cir.
- 1997State v. McClendon Wash.
- 1997Grove v. Kadlic D. Nev.
- 1996Wright v. State Nev.
- 1996Gordon v. Eighth Judicial District Court Nev.
- 1996United States v. Steven R. Smith 9th Cir.
- 1996United States v. Rodger Joel Aldridge 9th Cir.
- 1996United States v. Ralph Vega and James Leonis 9th Cir.
- 1996United States v. Lyman Hollingsworth 9th Cir.
- 1996United States v. Charles Wesley Arlt 9th Cir.
Cites 1 case
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. $405,089.23 U.S. CURRENCY, et al., Defendants. Charles Arlt, James Wren, Payback Mines, Claimants-Appellants.
Judges
- Before: POOLE and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges, and TANNER, District Judge.
- with whom Circuit Judges CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, WIGGINS, KOZINSKI, O’SCANNLAIN, TROTT and T.G. NELSON join,
Attorneys
- Charles Wesley Arlt, Lompoc, CA, and James Eli Wren, Lompoc, CA, pro se, for claimants-appellants.
- Mark A. Feldman, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, CA, for plaintiff-appellee.
- Jeffry K. Finer, Finer & Pugsley, P.S., Spokane, WA, Jeffrey Steinborn, Seattle, WA, Brenda Grantland, Forfeiture Endangers American Rights, Mill Valley, CA, Shawn R. Perez, Santa Ana, CA, for defendant-appellant.
- Richard S. Troberman, Seattle, WA, E.E. Edwards, III, Nashville, TN, David Michael, San Francisco, CA, David B. Smith, Alexandria, VA, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
ORDER
The opinion filed September 6, 1994, 33 F.3d 1210, is amended as follows:
On 33 F.3d at 1220, please add the following footnote at the end of the text and renumber the footnotes accordingly:
Our adoption of this categorical approach is also compelled by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1937, 128 L.Ed.2d 767 (1994). There, the Supreme Court applied Austin’s categorical approach for determining when punishment has been imposed in a Double Jeopardy case arising pursuant to a state statute that taxed drug monies. Id. at -, 114 S.Ct. at 1948.
All of the panel members have voted to deny the petition for rehearing.
Judge Poole and Judge Reinhardt have voted to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc and Judge Tanner has so recommended.
The full court was advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc. A judge of the court requested a vote as to whether to take the case en banc, and a vote was taken. The request failed to secure the affirmative vote of a majority of the active non-recused members of the court.
The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.