crime, his prosecution was barred by the terms of the Major Crimes Act. The district court rejected his argument, and Pluff now appeals. We affirm. DISCUSSION A. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review A district court’s construction of a statute is reviewed de novo, as are claims that a prosecution violates the double jeopardy clause. See, e.g., United States v. Schwartz, 785 F.2d 673, 676 (9th Cir.1986). We have jurisdiction to review Pluffs claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. B. The Major Crimes Act Does Not Incorporate Idaho’s Double Jeopardy Law We will assume for purposes of this appeal that Idaho law would prohibit Pluffs federal prosecution in this situation, although whether that assumption is correct is far from clear. Compare State v. Reichenberg, 128 Idaho 452, 915 P.2d 14, 18 (1996) (<HOLDING>) with Idaho Code § 19-315 (providing that a
holding that the idaho constitution provides no greater protection from double jeopardy than does the federal constitution recognizing that oath taken to honor state constitution makes it the justices duty to apply the state constitution when it does not conflict with the federal constitution holding that unlike under the federal constitution a civil forfeiture is punishment under the new mexico double jeopardy clause holding that appellate court assumes appellant claims no greater protection under state constitution than that provided by federal constitution when state and federal claims not briefed separately holding missouri constitution requires stricter separation of church and state than does federal constitution