From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Halloran

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 19, 1999
173 F.3d 862 (9th Cir. 1999)

Summary

holding that foreign nationals have notification rights under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention and that those individuals have standing to enforce their rights in United States courts

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Briscoe

Opinion


173 F.3d 862 (9th Cir. 1999) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Joseph HALLORAN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-35780. Nos. CV-94-01843-WLD CR-90-00303-WLD United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit March 19, 1999

Submitted March 15, 1999

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington William L. Dwyer, District Judge, Presiding.

Before GOODWIN, KOZINSKI, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Thomas Joseph Halloran appeals the district court's denial of a motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction for the illegal manufacture and distribution of marijuana, conspiracy to manufacture marijuana, and maintaining a residence for the purpose of manufacturing marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and we affirm.

Halloran contends his conviction violates the Double Jeopardy Clause because it occurred after a civil forfeiture. Halloran's contention is foreclosed by United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267, 292 (1996).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Halloran

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 19, 1999
173 F.3d 862 (9th Cir. 1999)

holding that foreign nationals have notification rights under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention and that those individuals have standing to enforce their rights in United States courts

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Briscoe
Case details for

U.S. v. Halloran

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Joseph HALLORAN…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Mar 19, 1999

Citations

173 F.3d 862 (9th Cir. 1999)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Briscoe

Briscoe has standing to seek a remedy based on the violation of his consular notification rights. See, e.g.,…

MacNeil Automotive Products, Ltd. v. Cannon Automotive Ltd.

However, a promissory estoppel claim is premised on the non-existence of a contract. See All-Tech Telecomm.,…