discussed Cited as authority (rule) Briggs v. Fenstermaker App’x 327 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding the prohibition against 16 double jeopardy does not apply to prison disciplinary sanctions); Sego v. Ricketts, 886 F.2d 334 17 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding re-computation of prisoner’s sentence to omit good time credit for 18 presentence incarceration did not constitute “multiple punishment” in violation of 19 the double jeopardy clause).

discussed Cited "see" Jesse Johnson v. City of Phoenix, et al. See Young, 886 F.2d 334 (Table), 6 1989 WL 112407 at *2 (rejecting the argument that “the mere fact that experienced pilots 7 disagree as to whether [plaintiff’s] operation of the helicopter violated the regulations 8 proves that the statute is unconstitutionally vague”); cf. Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 9 291, 309 (1977) (“Similarly, the possibility that different juries might reach different 10 conclusions as to the same material does not render the statute unconstitutional.” (citations 11 omitted)).