3/22/22: Finally a criminal decision

More than a month has passed since the last published criminal decision.  Today brings a case about appellate waivers and supervised release conditions.  

In United States v. Wells, --- F.4th ---, No. 19-10451 (9th Cir. 2022), the Court dismissed in part an appeal from the district court’s judgment and order imposing sentence and conditions of supervised release, vacated the judgment in part, and remanded with instructions to the district court to clarify a special condition of supervised release to avoid a constitutional violation.

The bulk of the appeal deals with appellate waivers and the exception for an "illegal sentence."  The Court explained, "a waiver of the right to appeal a sentence does not apply if (1) the defendant raises a challenge that the sentence violates the Constitution; (2) the constitutional claim directly challenges the sentence itself; and (3) the constitutional challenge is not based on any underlying constitutional right that was expressly and specifically waived by the appeal waiver as part of a valid plea agreement."

Under this standard, the Court held, "Wells waived his general right to appeal 'any aspect' of his sentence but did not expressly waive any specific constitutional right, such as any First Amendment challenges. Following our precedent, we must address the constitutional challenges on the merits."

The Court then considered the merits of certain supervised release challenges, but otherwise dismissed the appeal. 

As relevant, it turned to a condition providing: 

You must not possess or use a computer without the prior approval of the probation officer. ‘Computer’ includes any electronic device capable of accessing the internet or processing or storing data as described at 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(1) (including cell phones), and all peripheral devices.” As part of the statute governing computer fraud crimes, section 1030(e)(1) defines “computer” as “an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device, but such term does not include an automated typewriter or typesetter, a portable hand held calculator, or other similar device.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(1).

The Court held this condition was unconstitutionally vague. 

We conclude that Special Condition No. 3 requires clarification. The definition of “computer” under the condition potentially could be understood to encompass common household objects. An “electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions” can include devices such as smart kitchen appliances that contain microprocessors, even though such appliances are not capable of receiving, storing, or otherwise processing materials of child pornography. To be clear, we do not make any determination on whether the special condition is overbroad, as it is an issue that is barred by the waiver. Certainly, the district court could have simply imposed a condition that bars the use of any device that uses electricity, which perhaps would be problematic for other reasons but is not “unconstitutionally vague.” But the definition for “computer” without any clarification here can lead to a situation where “men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.”

Of note, this case might be heading en banc because there is a conflict between United States v. Bibler, 495 F.3d 621 (9th Cir. 2007) and United States v. Joyce, 357 F.3d 921 (9th Cir. 2004), as to when appellate waivers apply. 

2/10/22: Section is 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) is unconstitutional as facially overbroad

In United States v. Hanson, --- F4th ---, No. 17-10548 (9th Cir. 2022), the Court vacated convictions on two counts of encouraging or inducing an alien to reside in the United States for private financial gain in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), and remanding for resentencing.  

The Court held that subsection (iv) is overbroad under the First Amendment and unconstitutional.

We []"interpret subsection (iv) as prohibiting someone from (1) inspiring, helping, persuading, or influencing, (2) through speech or conduct, (3) one or more specified aliens (4) to come to or reside in the United States in violation of civil or criminal law."

"It is clear that subsection (iv) covers a substantial amount of protected speech. Many commonplace statements and actions could be construed as encouraging or inducing an undocumented immigrant to come to or reside in the United States. For example, the plain language of subsection (iv) covers knowingly telling an undocumented immigrant 'I encourage you to reside in the United States.' Such a statement is protected by the First Amendment."

"[T]the government’s interpretation of subsection (iv)’s reach is subject to change and is irrelevant: 'the First Amendment protects against the government; it does not leave us at the mercy of noblesse oblige. We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the government promised to use it responsibly.'" 

"We are mindful that invalidating subsection (iv) for overbreadth is 'strong medicine' that is not to be 'casually employed.'  However, for the reasons we have set forth above, subsection (iv) is overbroad and unconstitutional."

2/3/22: Federal kidnapping case

In United States v. Jackson, --- F.4th ---, No. 19-10070 (9th Cir. 2022), the Court reversed a conviction for kidnapping under 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2), and remanded for resentencing.

The basic facts were that Jackson assaulted his ex-girlfriend.  During the assault, he restrained her.  The government charged him with assault and kidnapping.  The jury convicted him of both.

As to the kidnapping charge, the Court noted the Supreme Court's warning that the statute should be narrowly construed to cover only true kidnapping:  "Were we to sanction a careless concept of the crime of kidnaping or were we to disregard the background and setting of the Act the boundaries of potential liability would be lost in infinity. A loose construction of the statutory language conceivably could lead to the punishment of anyone who induced another to leave his surroundings and do some innocent or illegal act of benefit to the former . . . . The absurdity of such a result . . . is sufficient by itself to foreclose that construction."

The Court explained, "[t]he facts here, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, do not bear the hallmarks of a 'true kidnaping[].'"

"[T]o distinguish facts that constitute kidnapping from those that do not," the Court adopted the analysis in Government of the Virgin Islands v. Berry, 604 F.2d 221, 224 (3d Cir. 1979).  Specifically, there are "four factors to guide courts and juries in defining kidnapping . . . . (1) the duration of the detention or asportation; (2) whether the detention or asportation occurred during the commission of a separate offense; (3) whether the detention or asportation which occurred is inherent in the separate offense; and (4) whether the asportation or detention created a significant danger to the victim independent of that posed by the separate offense."

"[W]e hold that, in kidnapping prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2), courts should consider the Berry factors to evaluate whether the charged conduct constitutes kidnapping. This is a factual inquiry, taken up during a Rule 29 motion and, if appropriate based on the circumstances of the case, incorporated into jury instructions."

"Applying these factors, we conclude that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a kidnapping occurred." 

2/1/22: Interesting decision related to collateral attacks

 In United States v. Schlenker, --- F.4th ---, No. 20-30141 (9th Cir. 2022), the Court affirmed the district court’s orders (1) granting the government’s motion to dismiss Jeremy Schlenker’s civil action seeking a declaration that filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion would not breach the plea agreement he entered in his criminal case in 2016, and (2) denying Schlenker’s motion to clarify the terms of the plea agreement.

Schlenker pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111 and 1153(a), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).  As part of the plea agreement, Schlenker waived his right to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence, except for ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

A few years after his sentencing, the Supreme Court held that the residual clause of § 924(c)(3), the provision defining a “crime of violence,” was unconstitutionally vague.  The Ninth Circuit then held that second-degree murder is not a “crime of violence” under the elements clause of § 924(c)(3).

As a result of these developments, Schlenker sought to challenge the validity of his § 924(c) sentence in a habeas proceeding, and his counsel so informed the government. The prosecutors responded that the government would oppose such relief and consider the filing of such an action to be a breach of the plea agreement. Schlenker then filed a motion to clarify the terms of his plea agreement (“Motion to Clarify”) in his criminal case. He also filed a civil action seeking a declaration that filing a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 would not breach the plea agreement. In both cases, the district court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because there was no “case or controversy” as required under Article III. See U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2, cl. 1.

The Court affirmed "because Schlenker’s declaratory action and Motion to Clarify improperly seek to carve out a collateral legal issue from a potential habeas petition and to use the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, as a substitute to challenge his sentence."

1/26/22: Two criminal decisions today

In United States v. Orrock, --- F.4th ---, No. 19-10388 (9th Cir. 2022), the Court affirmed a conviction for evading the assessment of taxes under 26 U.S.C. § 7201. 

This is a statute of limitations case.  The Court considered when the six-year limitations period is triggered for purposes of 26 USC § 7201. 

It held, "the statute of limitations for evasion of assessment cases under § 7201 runs from the last act necessary to complete the offense, either a tax deficiency or the last affirmative act of evasion, whichever is later." 

"In sum, evasion of assessment and evasion of payment offenses are two ways to commit the same § 7201 offense. And we hold that the last affirmative act of evasion rule applies to both cases. Given the indictment was brought within six years of Orrock’s last evasive act, we affirm his conviction on the evasion of assessment charge."

Next, in United States v. Ceja, --- F.4th ---, No. 20-50204 (9th Cir. 2022),  the Court affirmed a conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine.

I'm not sure why this case is published, as it does not break new ground.  In any event, the Court rejected Ceja's arguments that: (1) his oral jury trial waiver was invalid; (2) the district court abused its discretion in rejecting his request for substitute counsel; (3) the evidence is insufficient with respect to his conviction of distribution of at least 50 grams of methamphetamine; and (4) the court erroneously treated his prior convictions as controlled substance offenses under the career offender guideline.

1/25/22: Case on compassionate release for pre-1987 convictions

In United States v. King, --- F.4th ---, No. 21-10002 (9th Cir. 2022), the Court affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion for compassionate release.

The issue was whether inmates who committed crimes before November 1, 1987, can move for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1), as amended by the FSA.  The Court held they cannot. 

"Because the statutory scheme governing compassionate release procedures is unmistakably clear that prisoners who offended before November 1, 1987, cannot personally move for compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1), and there is neither ambiguity nor absurdity in what Congress has said, we may not consider King’s extrinsic evidence. The unambiguous statutory text controls and we go no further in deciding this case." 

1/24/22: Case on “intent to defraud” under 18 U.S.C. § 1029

In United States v. Saini, --- F4th ---, No. 19-50196 (9th Cir. 2022), the Court affirmed convictions for possession of device making equipment (18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(4)), and possession of at least fifteen unauthorized access devices (18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3)). 

"Saini’s main argument is that the district court reversibly erred by instructing the jury that 'intent to defraud' under 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3) and (4) means an intent to deceive or cheat. Saini claims that 'intent to defraud' is an intent to deceive and cheat—an intent to deprive the victim of money or property by deception. We agree. The plain and ordinary meaning of 'intent to defraud' under § 1029(a)(3) and (4) is the intent to deprive the victim of money or property by deception."

The Court, however, found the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.  "In sum, the ordinary meaning of 'intent to defraud' under § 1029(a)(3) and (4) requires an intent to deceive and cheat. Legislative history supports our interpretation. The district court therefore gave an erroneous jury instruction. But, as discussed below, the error was harmless."

The Court also gave the helpful reminder that the 9th Cir. model instructions are "only instructive at best."  They are not authoritative legal pronouncements.