Legal Opinion
United States v. Houghton
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 13, 2005No. 04-30372PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM **
Federal prisoner Henderson Houghton appeals pro se the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate or set aside a final order of forfeiture regarding property used to commit child pornography offenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see United States v. Kim, 94 F.3d 1247, 1249 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.
Houghton contends his due process rights were violated because he received insufficient notice of the post-conviction forfeiture proceedings and because he was given insufficient time to respond…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Marlene Eberle, and Robert Kiser v. City of Anaheim Anaheim Police Department P. Shepard Hagenson MonsoorCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- United States v. Sung Jin KimCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Merle BENNETT, Defendant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- United States v. Real PropertyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
3Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. BradleyDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia · 2007
- United States v. CarlsonDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2015
- United States v. ConnerDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 2009