Two cases today, both straightforward.
First, in United States v. Perez, --- F.3d ---, No. 17-10216 (9th Cir. 2019), the Court held that Cal. PC Section 243(d) (battery resulting in serious bodily
injury) is a "crime of violence" under section 4B1.2(a)(1) of the Sentencing Guidelines.
The Court explained: "Because 'serious bodily
injury' is defined as 'a serious impairment of physical
condition,' Cal. Penal Code § 243(f)(4), we must likewise
conclude that a person cannot be convicted under § 243(d) 'unless he willfully and unlawfully applies force sufficient to
not just inflict a physical injury on the victim, but to inflict' a severe physical injury. As a result, section 243(d) 'fits squarely
within the term [crime of violence] by requiring the deliberate
use of force that injures another.'"
Second, in United States v. Phillips, --- F.3d ---, No. 18-50138 (9th Cir. 2019), the Court affirmed the defendant's conviction for conspiracy to use interstate telephone calls in the
commission of a murder-for-hire, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1958.
The Court held that
the defendant’s promise to forgive an uncollectible and
legally unenforceable debt satisfies the pecuniary value
requirement of § 1958:
"[T]he pecuniary value
requirement does not require the murder-for-hire agreement
to comport with contract rules, as Congress did not aim
§ 1958 only at murderous businessmen. After all, debt
enforcement is the sine qua non of the criminal underworld.
While there may be no honor among thieves, there are
certainly obligations—as Don Corleone, on the day of his
daughter’s wedding, made clear to Amerigo Bonasera. It is
enough that Suiaunoa received money from Phillips and felt
obligated to pay him back. Phillips’ promise to relieve
Suiaunoa of this debt, in return for Fruchter’s murder, gave
Suiaunoa an economic benefit, satisfying the pecuniary
value requirement of murder-for-hire."
