Opinion ID: 725550
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 2 On January 14, 1992, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute approximately 800 grams of crystal methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Specifically, defendant admitted that, on September 6, 1991, he delivered approximately one pound of crystal methamphetamine to an individual who was cooperating with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in Honolulu. Defendant was arrested immediately. Thereafter, he surrendered an additional half pound of methamphetamine, which was in his apartment. In sum, the total crystal methamphetamine held by defendant for sale on September 5, 1991, was approximately 800 grams. On August 19, 1992, the district court sentenced defendant to 84 months of imprisonment and 5 years of supervised release, and imposed a $25,000 fine and $50 assessment fee. 3 In addition to the criminal indictment against defendant, the government also commenced one administrative and two civil judicial forfeiture proceedings against defendant's properties based on probable cause that the properties were connected with defendant's drug activities. In the administrative proceeding, $20,340 in U.S. currency, found at defendant's sister-in-law's residence after defendant admitted that he instructed his sister-in-law to remove the amount from his apartment, was administratively forfeited because no claim of ownership to the property was filed. In the two judicial forfeiture proceedings against jewelry and real property owned by defendant, the government and defendant stipulated that defendant would pay the government $105,000 in exchange for return of the jewelry and real property and for dismissal of the civil forfeiture actions. On August 21, 1992, the district court approved the parties' Stipulation for Compromise Settlement. Thereafter, the district court in the criminal action amended defendant's Judgment and Commitment Order to eliminate the $25,000 fine imposed against him. 4 In August 1995, the district court denied defendant's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition for habeas corpus to vacate his conviction and sentence, and for return of the $105,000 paid by defendant pursuant to the Stipulation for Compromise Settlement. The court rejected defendant's arguments that 21 U.S.C. § 841 is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause and that his criminal conviction and civil forfeitures violated the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause.