Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Alvin Dale Lewis, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views3 pages
    This document summarizes an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding two cases against Alvin Dale Lewis for drug possession and conspiracy. The court affirmed Lewis's convictions. It determined that civil forfeiture proceedings against Lewis's property did not constitute double jeopardy under precedent. The court reviewed the double jeopardy claim for plain error since Lewis did not raise it in the lower court. The court found no error that would warrant overturning the conviction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-04-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-4368

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding two cases against Alvin Dale Lewis for drug possession and conspiracy. The court affirmed Lewis's convictions. It determined that civil forfeiture proceedings against Lewis's property did not constitute double jeopardy under precedent. The court reviewed the double jeopardy claim for plain error since Lewis did not raise it in the lower court. The court found no error that would warrant overturning the conviction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    8 views3 pages

    United States v. Alvin Dale Lewis, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding two cases against Alvin Dale Lewis for drug possession and conspiracy. The court affirmed Lewis's convictions. It determined that civil forfeiture proceedings against Lewis's property did not constitute double jeopardy under precedent. The court reviewed the double jeopardy claim for plain error since Lewis did not raise it in the lower court. The court found no error that would warrant overturning the conviction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 99-4368

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ALVIN DALE LEWIS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    No. 99-4369

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ALVIN DALE LEWIS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-97-61-V, CR-98-123-V)

    Submitted:

    March 31, 2000

    Decided:

    April 18, 2000

    Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
    Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Joseph L. Ledford, LEDFORD & MURRAY, P.C., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED
    STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Alvin Dale Lewis appeals his convictions for possession with
    intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base in violation of
    U.S.C. 841(a) (1994), and a related conspiracy offense.
    U.S.C. 846 (1994).

    21

    See 21

    On appeal, Lewis contends that his prose-

    cution was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause because it followed


    the forfeiture of a significant amount of currency and personal
    property seized at the time of his arrest.
    Ursery, 518 U.S. 267, 280 (1996).

    See United States v.

    Because Lewis failed to advance

    this argument in the district court, our review of the issue is


    constrained to a search for plain error.

    See United States v.

    Jarvis, 7 F.3d 404, 409 (4th Cir. 1993); see also United States v.
    Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34 (1993) (defining plain error).

    How-

    ever, our review of the record reveals no error of that magnitude.


    See Ursery, 518 U.S. at 280; see also Lynn v. West, 134 F.3d 582,
    593 (4th Cir. 1998).
    Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence.

    We dis-

    pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
    are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like