United States Eighth Circuit

Following conditional guilty plea and appeal remanding case to district court, subsequent district court proceeding is not double jeopardy because proceeding was continuation of jeopardy. Church annex damaged by defendant was actively employed for commercial purpose, but there was insufficient evidence to conclude the annex was used directly in the stream of interstate commerce or in any activity affecting interstate commerce, as required under 18 U.S.C. section 844(i).

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/26/2002
• Published 08/26/2002

Judges

• HANSEN, Circuit Judge., Before:  HANSEN, Chief Judge, HEANEY and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Eighth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• James E. Ostgard, argued, Minneapolis, MN, for appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• D. Gerald Wilhelm, argued, Minneapolis, MN, for appellee.