Because 4.05 announced a new rule, and no exceptions apply, it should not be applied on habeas to provide Garcia relief from his criminal conviction. B. Did Jeopardy Attach in the Civil Proceeding Before the Jury Was Empaneled in the Criminal Proceeding? Even if 405 could be retroactively applied to this case, it would not provide Garcia a basis for relief from his criminal conviction because je r.1995) (jeopardy attaches no earlier than date on which defendant filed answer to forfeiture complaint); see also United States v. Faber, 57 F.3d 873, 874-75 (9th Cir.1995) (conviction does not violate double jeopardy where defendant entered guilty plea before entering into settlement agreement in civil forfeiture proceeding); United States v. Wong, 62 F.3d 1212, 1214-15 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Sanchez-Cobarruvias, 65 F.3d
recognizing that federal habeas statutes require petitioner to be in custody when petition filed holding that jeopardy does not attach in the administrative process preliminary to formal forfeiture proceedings even when the petitioner has filed a petition for remission or mitigation holding that substantial attempts by surety may entitle it to remission of bond forfeiture holding in the administrative forfeiture context that jeopardy does not and cannot attach until one is made a party to a proceeding before a trier of fact having jurisdiction to try the question of guilt or innocence holding that because the petitioner failed in the petition to set forth facts known to petitioner or state that petitioner has no knowledge of facts regarding the name and address of any judicially appointed guardian or person or agency awarded custody of the child by a court and failed to attach the existing custody order to the petition it was facially defective and did not confer subject matter jurisdiction upon the trial court