Upload
maxine-bernstein
View
219
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/26/2019 Judge dismisses Count 3 in Bundy case
1/16
IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF
OREGON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
P l a i n t i f f
v .
AMMON
BUNDY
JON RITZHEIMER,
JOSEPH O SHAUGHNESSY, RYAN
PAYNE, RYAN
BUNDY
BRIAN
CAVALIER,
SHAWNA
COX, PETER
SANTILLI,
JASON PATRICK,
DUANE LEO EHMER, DYLAN
ANDERSON, SEAN ANDERSON,
DAVID LEE FRY,
JEFF
WAYNE
BANTA,
SANDRA
LYNN ANDERSON,
KENNETH MEDENBACH
BLAINE
COOPER,
WESLEY
KJAR,
COREY
LEQUIEU, NEIL
WAMPLER
JASON
CHARLES BLOMGREN DARRYL
WILLIAM THORN, GEOFFREY
STANEK, TRAVIS COX,
ERIC
LEE
FLORES,
and
JAKE RYAN,
Defendants .
3:16-cr-00051-BR
ORDER
GRANTING MOTION
( 465)
TO
DISMISS AND
DISMISSING
COUNT
THREE OF THE SUPERSEDING
INDICTMENT
1 -
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
( 465) TO DISMISS AND DISMISSING
COUNT
THREE
OF
THE
SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 671 Filed 06/10/16 Page 1 of 16
7/26/2019 Judge dismisses Count 3 in Bundy case
2/16
BROWN Judge
This mat te r comes before the Cour t on the
Motion
(#465)
to
Dismiss
f i l e d
by Defendants David Lee Fry,
mmon Bundy, Jon
Ritzheimer, Ryan Payne, Ryan Bundy, Brian Caval ie r ,
Jason
Pat r ick ,
and
Sean
Anderson. For
the
reasons
t ha t
fo l low,
the
Cour t GRANTS
Defendants '
Motion and ISMISSES Count Three
of
the
Superseding
Indictment .
BACKGROUND
In
Count
Three
of the Superseding
Indictment
(#282) the
government
charges Defendants with the use
and
carry ing
of
a
f i rearm in
r e l a t i o n to a crime
of v io lence
i n v io l a t i o n
of
18
U.S.C. 924 (c)
(1) (A).
The
crime of v io lence to
which
Count
Three
r e f e r s i s the
conspiracy
to impede
o f f i c e r s
of the United
Sta t e s in
v io l a t i o n
of
18 U.S.C. 372 as charged
in
Count One
of
the
Superseding
Indictment . In Count
One
the government a l leges
Defendants
knowingly and
w i l l fu l l y consp i re[d )
and
agree[d)
toge ther
and
with each othe r
and
with
persons
known
and
unknown
to
the
Grand
Jury to preven t
by force,
i n t imida t ion ,
and
t h r e a t s , o f f i c e r s and
employees
of
the
United Sta t e s
Fish and Wild l i fe Serv ice and the
Bureau
of Land
Management, agencies
within
the
United
Sta t e s Department of the In t e r io r , from discharg ing the
The Motion
was
f i l e d by David Lee Fry on beha l f of each
o f
the Defendants
named in
Count
Three
o f the Superseding
Indictment , and
for purposes of t h i s
Order
the
Cour t uses
Defendants and
a l l
Defendants to r e f e r to those
Defendants.
2
ORDER GR NTING MOTION (#465) TO
DISMISS
ND
DISMISSING
COUNT
THREE OF THE
SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 671 Filed 06/10/16 Page 2 of 16
7/26/2019 Judge dismisses Count 3 in Bundy case
3/16
dut i e s of t he i r
o f f i c e
a t the Malheur
National
Wildl i fe
Refuge and other
l oca t ions
in Harney County, Oregon, in
v io l a t i o n
of Ti t l e 18, United Sta t e s Code, Sect ion 372.
DIS USSION
Defendants contend Count
Three must
be dismissed because the
Sect ion 372 consp i racy offense charged in Count One i s
not
a
crime of v io lence wi th in the
meaning
o f
924(c)
(1) (A).
Sect ion 924 (c) (3) def ines
a
cr ime
of v io lence
as
an offense
t h a t i s
a
fe lony and
-
A)
has
as
an
element t he use,
at tempted use ,
o r
th rea tened use
of
phys ica l fo rce
aga ins t the
person
or
proper ty o f ano ther , or
B)
t ha t by i t s
nature ,
involves
a subs tan t i a l
r i sk
t ha t phys ica l fo rce aga ins t the
person
or p roper ty o f
another may be used
in
the course of committ ing t he
offense .
The f i r s t
h a l f of t h i s s t a tu to ry de f in i t ion
o f
cr ime
o f
vio lence
i s
known
as
the
force c lause .
The
second
h a l f
o f
the
def in i t ion ,
924 (c) (3)
(B),
i s known as the r es idua l c lause .
Sect ion 372,
in
turn ,
proh ib i t s
conspir[ ing] to prevent , by force, i n t imida t ion , o r
t h rea t , any person from accep t ing
or
holding any
off i ce , t r u s t ,
or
p lace
of
confidence under the United
Sta tes , or from discharg ing
any
dut i e s the reof , or
to
induce
by l i ke
means
any o f f i c e r
of
the
United
Sta tes
to
leave
the p lace , where h is dut i e s as an o f f i c e r
are
requ i red
to
be
per formed,
or
t o i n ju r e
him
in h is
person
or p roper ty on account of hi s
lawful discharge
of the dut i e s
of
hi s off i ce , or while engaged in the
lawful discharge
t he reof , or to
in ju re h i s
proper ty
so
as to moles t , i n t e r ru p t , hinder ,
or
impede him
in
the
discharge of
hi s o f f i c i a l du t ies .
3 - ORDER
GR NTING MOTION
(#465)
TO
DISMISS
ND
DISMISSING
COUNT
THREE
OF
THE
SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 671 Filed 06/10/16 Page 3 of 16
7/26/2019 Judge dismisses Count 3 in Bundy case
4/16
I
tandard
At
the
ou tse t the Court must determine the
s tandard to
apply
when
assess ing whether
372 i s
a
crime of v io lence wi th in the
meaning o f 924(c) .
The p a r t i e s
genera l ly
agree the Cour t should apply
the
ca tegor i ca l approach f i r s t se t out in Taylor v . Uni ted S ta t es
495 U.S. 575
(1990) ,
to
determine w h e t h e r
372 i s
crime of
violence
u n d e r 924(c) .
Under
the ca tegor ica l approach
the
cour t
look[s ] to
the elements
of
the o f fense
r a th e r than
the
p a r t i c u l a r f ac t s
underly ing a
defendant ' s
convict ion
to
decide
whether
the offense cr imina l ize
[s]
'a
broader swath
o f
conduct '
than the conduct covered
by
the def in i t ion of crime of
vio lence
in
924
(c) .
See United
S ta tes
v . Dominguez-Maroyoqui
748
F. 3d 918,
920
(9 th Cir . 2014) (quoting
Descamps
v . Uni ted
Sta tes
133 S. Ct. 2276,
2281
(2013)) . Under the ca tegor ica l
approach the ana lys i s focuses exc lus ive ly on the elements of the
s t a tu t e . Thus, i the
elements of
372
cr imina l ize
a
broader
swath of conduct
than
the
def in i t ion
of crime of v io lence
in
924(c) ,
t h e n
372
cannot
qua l i fy as a
cr ime of v io lence ,
even
i
the f ac t s
underly ing
the charge
o therwise meet
the
def in i t ion . Dominguez-Maroyoqui
748
F.3d a t 920. See also
Taylor
495
U.S.
a t 600.
The
Court ,
the re fo re , does not express
any opinion as to whether
the a l leged
conduct underly ing Count
4
ORDER
GR NTING MOTION
(#465) TO
DISMISS ND DISMISSING COUNT
THREE OF
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 671 Filed 06/10/16 Page 4 of 16
7/26/2019 Judge dismisses Count 3 in Bundy case
5/16
One in the Superseding
Indictment meets
the d e f i n i t i o n of cr ime
of vio lence
in 924(c) .
Under
the
ca tegor ica l approach,
the c r ime-of -v io lence
determinat ion ' f unc t ion[s ] as an on-of f swi tch ' :
An
offense
q u a l i f i e s as
a
cr ime of vio lence
' i n
a l l cases or
in
n o n e . '
Dominguez-Maroyoqui 748
F.3d
a t 920
(quot ing Descamps 133 S.Ct .
a t
2287) .
Never the less ,
a
cour t may employ
a
modif ied ca tegor ica l
approach
in
a
narrow
range
of
cases
to
look beyond the
s t a t u t o ry elements to ' t he
charging
paper
and
j u ry
i n s t ru c t i o n s '
used
in
a
case
in
order to determine whether the cr ime charged
q u a l i f i e s as
a
crime of
v io lence . Descamps 133 S. Ct. a t
2283-84 (quot ing
Taylor
495 U.S. a t
602) .
Thus, the modif ied
ca tegor ica l approach i s a too l fo r
implementing the
ca tegor ica l
approach
t ha t in ce r t a in cases
permi ts
the cour t to examine
a
l imi t ed c las s
of
documents to determine which
of
a
s t a t u t e ' s
a l t e rn a t i v e
elements
formed the
bas i s
of the
defendant ' s
p r i o r
conv ic t ion . Descamps 133
S. Ct.
a t
2284. The modif ied
ca tegor ica l approach, however, does not prov ide
any
bas i s fo r the
cour t to look
a t
the
conduct
of the
defendant beyond
the e lements
within
the
s t a tu t e .
See
id
In any event , a cour t
may
only
apply
the
modif ied
ca tegor ica l approach i the
s t a tu t e a t i s sue
i s
d iv i s ib l e . Rendon v . Holder
764 F.3d 1077,
1083 (9th Cir .
5
ORDER GR NTING MOTION (#465) TO
DISMISS
ND
DISMISSING
COUNT
THREE OF
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 671 Filed 06/10/16 Page 5 of 16
7/26/2019 Judge dismisses Count 3 in Bundy case
6/16
2014) . The
c r i t i c a l
d i s t i nc t i on when determining whether a
s t a tu t e i s d i v i s i b l e
i s t ha t
while i nd i v i s i b l e s t a tu t e s
may
conta in
mul t ip l e ,
a l t e rna t i ve means
of
committ ing
the crime,
only
d i v i s i b l e
s t a tu t e s conta in mul t ip le , a l t e r na t i ve elements of
funct ional ly separa te cr imes . Id. a t
1084-85.
Here
the
government
emphasizes the
f ac t t ha t
the
ca tegor ica l
approach
i s most
of t en
appl ied
when
a
cour t
i s
re t rospec t ive ly
determining whether a
defendant ' s
exi s t i ng convic t ion qua l i f i e s
as
a
crime of v io lence for sentenc ing purposes or o ther
s t a t u t o ry app l i ca t ions . Moreover,
the
government notes some
t r i a l
cour t s
have
ques t ioned whether
the
ca tegor ica l approach
even app l i es when a
cour t
i s determining whether a
concur ren t ly -
charged of fense for
which a
defendant has ye t to s tand
t r i a l
qua l i f i e s
as
a
crime of v io lence u n d e r 924(c) ) . See e . g .
United
Sta te s v .
Wells
No.
2:14-cr-00280-JCM-GWF,
2015
WL
10352877, a t *1-*5 D. Nev.
Dec.
30, 2015),
adopted
by 2016
WL
697107 (Feb. 19,
2016);
United Sta te s v . Woodley No. 15-c r -
20007, 2015 WL
7770859 (E.D.
Mich. Dec.
3,
2015); United
Sta te s
v.
S tandberry 139 F.
Supp.
3d 734, 735-37 (E.D. Va. 2015) . But
see
United Sta te s v . Smith No. 2:11-cr-00058-JAD-CWH, 2016
WL
2901661, a t *3
D. Nev. May
18,
2016) (ques t ioning
the u t i l i t y of
the
ca tegor ica l approaches ou t s ide o f
the
sentenc ing con tex t ,
but ,
none the less , fo l lowing
the Ninth C ircu i t ' s
holding
t ha t the
6 - ORDER GR NTING
MOTION
(#465) TO DISMISS ND DISMISSING COUNT
THREE OF
THE
SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 671 Filed 06/10/16 Page 6 of 16
7/26/2019 Judge dismisses Count 3 in Bundy case
7/16
ca tegor ica l analyses apply to
924(c)
cr ime-of -v io lence
determinat ions
both
a t
t r i a l and a t
sentencing
'w i thou t
regard
to
whether the given offense i s
a p r io r
offense o r the o f fense o f
conv ic t ion . ' )
(quot ing United
S ta t es
v Piccolo
441
F.3d
1084,
1086 (9th Cir .
2006)). In p a r t i c u l a r , these cour t s have
quest ioned whether the Supreme Cour t ' s
r a t i o n a l e
for employing
the ca tegor ica l approach in
a
r e t rospec t ive ana lys is appl ies with
equal fo rce when a cour t determines whether a concur ren t ly -
charged offense
i s a
crime of v io lence
in
the context of
a
p r e t r i a l
motion
to dismiss .
These
cour t s
have
observed t ha t ,
unl ike in
the
sen tenc ing context , a proper ly i n s t r u c t ed
j u ry
may
determine
f ac tua l ly whether the under ly ing
cr ime
q u a l i f i e s a
crime o f
v io lence . See Woodley
2015
W 7770859, a t *4-*5.
Although t h i s Cour t acknowledges the
l eg i t ima te
reasoning
of
the d i s t r i c t cour t opinions on
which
the
government
r e l i e s , the
Court , never the less ,
i s bound by
Ninth
C i r cu i t preceden t t h a t the
ca tegor ica l approach
app l i e s
even in the con tex t
o f
determining
whether
a
concurrent ly-charged pred ica t e offense
i s a
crime of
violence
u n d e r 924(c) .
United S ta tes
v.
Amparo
68 F.3d 1222,
1224-26
(9th
Cir .
1995).
See
a l so
Piccolo
441
F.3d a t
1086.
Thus, t h i s Court must apply the ca tegor ica l
ana lys i s ( including,
i
appl icable , the
modif ied ca tegor i ca l approach) when
determining
whether
372
ca tegor ica l ly
qua l i f i e s
as a
crime of
violence under e i the r the fo rce c lause o r the re s idua l c lause o f
7 ORDER GR NTING
MOTION
(#465) TO DISMISS ND DISMISSING COUNT
THREE OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 671 Filed 06/10/16 Page 7 of 16
7/26/2019 Judge dismisses Count 3 in Bundy case
8/16
924 (c) (3) .
II The Force lause
As
noted , the
force
c lause ,
18
U.S. C. 924 (c)
(3) (A),
def ines
a
crime of vio lence to
inc lude
an offense t ha t i s
a
fe lony
and t h a t
has as an element the use, a t tempted use,
o r
th rea tened use
of
phys ica l force
aga ins t
the person
or
proper ty
of ano the r .
18 U.S.C. 372, in
turn ,
proh ib i t s
consp i r [ ing]
to preven t , by force, i n t imida t ion , or t h rea t
a
fede ra l o f f i c i a l
from discharg ing the dut i e s
of
t he i r
o f f i c e .
2
The p la in language
of
Sect ion 372
c r imina l i ze [ s ] ' a
broader
swath
of conduct '
Dominguez-Maroyoqui,
748
F.3d
a t
920
(quot ing
Descamps, 133 S. Ct.
a t 2281)) than
the def in i t ion
of
crime
o f
violence
under
the fo rce c lause , 18 U.S.C.
924 (c) (3)
(A),
because
a t h rea t does not always impl ica te
the threa tened
use
of phys ica l
fo rce
aga ins t the person or p roper ty o f ano the r .
For
example, because the
express te rms
of
372 do not
l imi t
a
t h rea t to the t h r e a t of phys ica l fo rce aga ins t the person
or
proper ty
of another ,
a t h rea t u n d e r 372 could be a t h r e a t
to
blackmai l a
federa l of f i c e r for the purpose of p reven t ing the
of f i c e r from
discharging
h is
or
her du t ies ,
which
i s
a
kind of
2
Although 372 ou t l ines four
separa te objec ts of the
consp i racy t h a t
are proh ib i t ed
(see
United
ta tes v.
Demott,
No.
05-CR-0073,
2005
WL
2314134 (N.D. N.Y. Sept . 22, 2005)), the only
objec t
named in Count One of the Superseding Indictment i s
to
preven t
o f f i c e r s
of
the United Sta t e s f rom discharg ing the
dut i e s
of
t he i r o f f i c e by
force, i n t imida t ion ,
and
t h rea t s .
8 ORDER GR NTING MOTION
(#465) TO
DISMISS ND DISMISSING COUNT
THREE OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 671 Filed 06/10/16 Page 8 of 16
7/26/2019 Judge dismisses Count 3 in Bundy case
9/16
t h r e a t
t ha t
does not necessa r i ly
requi re
as an element the
threa tened
use of phys ica l fo rce .
3
See 18 U.S.C.
924 (c) (3) A) Never the less , a
t h rea t
under 372 must
be
i l l e g i t im a te .
See
United
States v. Fulbright 105 F.3d
443,
452
(9th Cir . 1997).
Moreover, the Cour t notes
the word
i n t imida t ion may a l so
encompass conduct t ha t does not
present
a
t h r e a t o f phys ica l
fo rce
because i n t imida t ion
could ,
fo r
example, apply to t h r e a t s of
nonvio len t
harm to proper ty . See
United S ta tes v . Casse l 408 F.3d
622,
636
(9th Cir .
2005) ( We
conclude t ha t
' i n t imida t ion ' under 18 U.S.C. 1860
requi res
the
t h r e a t
of harm
i n f l i c t e d by the defendant
upon
the v ic t im ' s
person
or
proper ty . ) .
The Court , t he re fo re , concludes 372
c r imina l i ze s
a
broader swath
of
conduct than the
def in i t ion o f crime of
violence
in
the
fo rce
c lause ,
and, consequent ly ,
372
i s not a
ca tegor ica l match
to the
fo rce
c lause .
See Dominguez-Maroyoqui
748
F.3d a t 920.
In addi t ion , the Court concludes t may not apply the
3
In ts
Order
(#650) Regarding Defendants ' Motions to
Dismiss
Count One for
Vagueness and
Overbreadth, the
Cour t
narrowly
cons t rued
a
t h r ea t
under
372
to
be
l imi t ed to
t r u e
th rea t s as
well
as
nonvio len t t h r e a t s such
as
blackmai l and
ex to r t ion
t ha t are not protec ted
by the
Fi r s t
Amendment. When
apply ing
the ca tegor ica l approach,
however,
the Cour t i s
not
permi t t ed to cons t rue a s t a tu t e to narrow the sweep of a broader
swath
of conduct
in
order to
f ind a match to t h e 924(c)
(3)
def in i t ion
of crime of v io l ence .
9 - ORDER GRANTING MOTION
(#465)
TO DISMISS AND DISMISSING COUNT
THREE OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 671 Filed 06/10/16 Page 9 of 16
7/26/2019 Judge dismisses Count 3 in Bundy case
10/16
modif ied
ca tegor i ca l
approach
to determine whether
372
q u a l i f i e s as a cr ime of v io lence under 924 (c) (3) A) because
372
i s not d i v i s i b l e as
to whether t he ob jec t
of the consp i racy
was
accomplished by force , in t imida t ion ,
o r
t h rea t .
Indeed,
the s t a t u t o ry
t e x t
makes
c l ea r
t ha t fo rce , i n t imida t ion ,
o r
t h rea t are t h ree means
by which
the consp i racy
to
preven t
federa l o f f i c i a l s
from discharg ing the
dut i e s
o f t h e i r o f f i c e may
be
accomplished. See
DeMott
2005 WL 2314134, a t
*1-*2.
Accordingly , the Court cannot employ the modif ied ca tegor ica l
ana lys i s t o determine
whether
372
qua l i f i e s as a
crime
of
vio lence under
18 U.S.C. 924 (c) (3) (A).
Applying the ca tegor i ca l approach on t h i s record , t he re fo re ,
the
Cour t concludes
372
i s
not
a
crime
o f
vio lence
as
def ined
in
the
fo rce
c lause
o f 18 U.S.C. 924(c) (3) (A).
I I I The
Residual
lause
Sect ion 372 may, nonethe less , co n s t i t u t e a
crime
o f
vio lence with in the
meaning
o f
924
(c) (3)
i
372
i s
a
ca tegor i ca l match wi th the re s idua l c lause o f 924 (c)
(3)
B)
Rather
than contend 372 does not
qua l i fy as
a
crime
o f
vio lence under the r e s i d u a l c lause ,
however,
Defendants i ns t ead
argue the re s idua l c lause
o f
924 (c) (3) B) i s void because it i s
u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y vague,
and,
t he re fo re ,
the government may not
r e ly
on
the
re s idua l c lause def in i t ion t o qua l i fy
372
as
a
crime o f vio lence . As noted, the re s idua l c lause def ines a
10
- ORDER GRANTING
MOTION (#465)
TO DISMISS AND DISMISSING
COUNT
THREE
OF
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 671 Filed 06/10/16 Page 10 of 16
7/26/2019 Judge dismisses Count 3 in Bundy case
11/16
crime of vio lence
as an
an offense t ha t
i s
a
fe lony and
t ha t
by i t s natu re , invo lves a
s u b s t an t i a l
r i s k t ha t phys ica l fo rce
aga ins t the person
or
proper ty
of
another may be used
in
the
course
of
committ ing
the
of fense . 18
U.S.C.
924(c)
(3)
(B).
Defendants
pr imar i ly
r e ly on
United
S ta t e s v. Johnson 135
S. Ct. 2551 (2015), to support
t he i r
argument
t ha t
the r es idua l
c lause
o f
924 (c) (3) B) i s void fo r vagueness . In Johnson
the
Supreme Court addressed whether the r es idua l c lause of the
Armed Career Criminal Act ACCA) was void
for vagueness.
The
ACCA
def ined v io len t fe lony
as any cr ime
punishab le
by
imprisonment fo r a term exceeding one year .
. t ha t . i s
burg la ry , arson , or ex to r t ion , involves use of explos ives ,
or
otherwise involves
conduct t ha t
presents ser ious po ten t ia l o f
phys ical
i n j u ry to another . 18
U.S.C. 924(e)
(2) B)
( i i )
(emphasis added).
The
c los ing c lause o f the d e f i n i t i o n
( i t a l i c i z e d above)
was
known as the r es idua l c lause .
Johnson
135 S. Ct.
a t 2555-56.
The
Johnson Cour t exp la ined t h a t use
of the
ca tegor ica l
approach when determining whether
a pred ica t e offense
f i t s with in
the ACCA's r es idua l c lause requ i re s a court
to p ic tu re
the kind
o f
conduct
t ha t
the cr ime invo lves in ' t he ord inary case , ' and to
judge
whether t ha t
abs t rac t ion
pre sen t s a se r ious po ten t i a l r i s k
of
phys ica l i n ju ry . Id. a t 2557
(quoting James
v.
United
States ,
550 U.S.
192, 208
(2007)) .
11 -
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
(#465) TO DISMISS AND DISMISSING
COUNT
THREE OF THE
SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 671 Filed 06/10/16 Page 11 of 16
7/26/2019 Judge dismisses Count 3 in Bundy case
12/16
The Cour t then found two
fea tu re s of
the re s idua l c lause
consp i re to make t uncons t i tu t iona l ly
vague.
Johnson 135 S.
Ct.
a t
2557. Fi r s t , the Court determined t he re s idua l c lause
leaves grave unce r t a in ty
about
how
to es t imate
the
r i s k posed by
a crime because
the cour t performing t h a t
ana lys i s t i e s
the
j ud i c i a l assessment of r i s k to a j ud i c i a l l y imagined ' o rd ina ry
case '
of
a
crime, not to rea l -wor ld
f ac t s
or s t a tu to ry e lements .
Id.
Second,
the Court reasoned the CC r es idua l c lause l eaves
unce r t a in ty
about how
much r i sk
t takes for
a
cr ime
to
qua l i fy
as
a
v io len t fe lony
because
the cour t making
t ha t
assessment
must
apply an
imprecise ' s e r ious
p o t e n t i a l r i s k ' s tandard
to
a
judge-imagined abs t rac t ion as
a
r e s u l t
of the
ord inary case
ana lys i s .
Id. a t
2558.
The
Court found the se r ious p o t e n t i a l
r i sk
s tandard
to
be espec ia l ly unclear because the
four
enumerated
crimes
t ha t the
CC
provided as examples (burg lary ,
arson, ex to r t ion , and
crimes
invo lv ing the
use of
exp los ives )
are
' f a r
from c l e a r in
respec t
to the degree of r i s k
each
poses . ' Id quoting Begay
v . Uni ted
S ta te s
553
U.S. 137, 143
(2008)) . Accordingly,
the
Court reasoned: By
combining
indeterminacy
about how to
measure
the
r i sk
posed by a cr ime with
indeterminacy
about how
much r i s k t t akes fo r the cr ime to
qua l i fy as a
v io len t fe lony,
the re s idua l c lause produces
more
u n p r ed i c t ab i l i t y and
a rb i t r a r i n e s s
than
the
Due
Process
Clause
12 ORDER GR NTING MOTION (#465) TO
DISMISS
ND
DISMISSING
COUNT
THREE
OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 671 Filed 06/10/16 Page 12 of 16
7/26/2019 Judge dismisses Count 3 in Bundy case
13/16
t o l e ra t e s .
Johnson
135 S. Ct.
a t
2558.
In add i t i on
to
eva lua t ing the vagueness
o f
the s t a tu t e on
i t s face, the Cour t
in
Johnson
a lso
noted i t s own r epea ted
a t tempts and
repea ted f a i l u re s to c ra f t
a pr inc ip led
and
ob jec t ive s tandard
out
of
the r es idua l c lause confirm i t s
hopeless indeterminacy and t ha t
lower cour t s
had
a l so s t rugg led
with how to apply the r es idua l
c lause in
the
ACCA
Id. a t
2558,
2560-61. Ult imate ly the Cour t concluded
[e ]ach of
the
u n ce r t a in t i e s i n the r es idua l
c lause may be t o l e rab le
in
i so l a t ion , but
' t h e i r
sum makes a t a sk fo r
us which
a t bes t could
be only guesswork . ' Id. a t 2560.
Defendants contend
the
r es idua l
c lause
o
924(c)
(3)
B) i s
mater ia l ly i nd i s t i ngu i shab le from the ACCA r es idua l c lause t h a t
the Supreme Cour t
found
void
for
vagueness in
Johnson. Moreover,
Defendants po in t
out
t ha t s ince
Johnson the
Ninth
Circu i t has
held
ano ther
s t a tu t e , 18
U.S.C.
16(b) , incorpora ted
in to
t he
Immigration
and
Nat iona l i t y Act, 8
U.S.C.
l lOl (a )
(43) (F), i s
a l so
void
for vagueness on s imi la r grounds. Dimaya v.
Lynch 803
F.3d 1110 (9 th Cir .
2015).
Sect ion 16(b) de f ines a crime of v io lence as any o the r
offense
t h a t i s a felony and
tha t ,
by i t s
na ture ,
invo lves a
subs tan t i a l
r i s k t ha t phys ica l
fo rce
aga ins t t he person or
proper ty of
ano ther
may be used in the
course
of committ ing t he
of fense . 18 U.S.C. 16(b) . A f te r expla in ing t h a t 16(b)
13
-
ORDER
GRANTING MOTION (#465)
TO
DISMISS AND DISMISSING COUNT
THREE OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 671 Filed 06/10/16 Page 13 of 16
7/26/2019 Judge dismisses Count 3 in Bundy case
14/16
requ i re s cour t s
to ' i nqu i re whether the conduct encompassed by
the elements of the of fense , in the o rd ina ry case , presen t s ' a
s u b s t an t i a l r i s k
of
fo rce , the Ninth C i r cu i t found the same two
cons idera t ions
t ha t rendered
the
CC r es idua l c lause
uncons t i tu t iona l ly vague
a l so
mandated the inva l ida t ion
of
16(b) . Dimaya
803
F.3d a t
1116-17 (quot ing Delgado-Hernandez
v.
Holder
697 F.3d
1125,
1128 (9 th Cir . 2012)).
Defendants ,
the re fo re , contend the r es idua l c lause of 924
(c)
(3) B) i s void
for
vagueness
because
it i s mater ia l ly ind i s t ingu i shab le from
16
(b) .
On the
other
hand, the
government
emphasizes the Dimaya
cour t ex press ly dec l ined to reach
the c ons t i t u t i ona l i t y of
app l i ca t ions of 18 U.S.C.
16(b)
outs ide of 8
U.S.C.
1101
(a) (43) F} or
to
cas t
any
doubt on the c ons t i t u t i ona l i t y of
18
U.S.C.
16(a ) ' s def in i t ion of a cr ime of v io lence .
Dimaya
803 F.3d
a t 1120
n.17 .
In
addi t ion ,
the
government
a s se r t s the
r es idua l c lause o
924(c)
i s d i s t ingu i shab le from the CC
r es idua l c lause t h a t the Supreme Court inva l ida ted in Johnson
b ecau s e 924(c) (3) B) lacks the list of enumerated of fenses t h a t
cont r ibuted to the
vagueness
of
the CC r es idua l
c lause ,
does
not
requi re
a cour t
to
look beyond the
elements of
the
pred ica t e
offense , and
does not
carry with
it
the same
h is to ry
of r epea ted
a t tempts
and
repea ted
fa i lu res to
c ra f t
a pr inc ip led and
ob jec t ive s tandard
as
the
CC r es idua l
c lause .
See Johnson
14
- ORDER GR NTING MOTION
( 465) TO
DISMISS ND
DISMISSING
COUNT
THREE OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 671 Filed 06/10/16 Page 14 of 16
7/26/2019 Judge dismisses Count 3 in Bundy case
15/16
135
S. Ct. a t 2558.
Never the less , the
Cour t notes many
of the
grounds t ha t t he
government
r e l i e s on to
d i s t i n g u i s h
924(c)
(3) B)
from
t he ACCA
r e s idua l
c lause
were cons idered and r e j e c t e d
by
t he Ninth C i r c u i t
in
Dimaya. See
803
F.3d a t
1118-19. Moreover, fo l lowing Johnson
and Dimaya
severa l
d i s t r i c t cour t s w i th in the Ninth Circu i t have
conc luded
924(c) (3) B) i s uncons t i tu t iona l ly vague. See
United
S ta t es v . Baires-Reyes
No.
15-cr-00122-EMC-2, 2016 WL 3163049,
a t
*3-*5
(N.D. Cal . June
7,
2016) ( f inding the reasoning o f Dimaya
app l i es
to t he r e s idua l
c lause of
924
(c)
(3) B) and,
accordingly , f inding
924
(c) (3) B) void
for
vagueness) ; United
S ta t es v . Lattanaphom
No.
2:99-00433 WBS 2016 WL 393545,
a t
*3-*6
(E.D. Cal. Feb.
2,
2016); United S ta tes v. Bel l No. 15-c r -
00258-WHO, 2016 WL 344749, a t *13 (N.D.
Cal.
Jan. 28, 2016) .
Although the government
c o r r e c t l y
po in t s
out t ha t t he
Six th
Circu i t in United S ta t es v . Taylor concluded the r e s idua l c lause
o
924(c)
(3)
B)
was
not uncons t i tu t iona l ly
vague in
l i gh t of
Johnson the S ix th Circu i t d id so only a f t e r acknowledging
16
(b) appears i de n t i c a l to 924 (c) (3) B) in
a l l
mater i a l
r espec t s
and
only a f t e r
expre ss ly
decl in ing
to
fo l low
t he
Ninth
C i r c u i t ' s
reasoning
in
Dimaya.
814
F.3d
340,
379
(6th
Cir .
2016)
.
Unlike the S ix th Circu i t in Taylor
t h i s
Cour t i s no t
empowered to
dec l ine
to fo l low
Dimaya. As t he
Taylor cour t
15
- ORDER GRANTING
MOTION (#465)
TO DISMISS AND DISMISSING
COUNT
THREE
OF
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 671 Filed 06/10/16 Page 15 of 16
7/26/2019 Judge dismisses Count 3 in Bundy case
16/16
noted, 16 (b)
appears
i d en t i c a l
to
924 (c) (3) B)
in
a l l
mate r i a l
r e s p ec t s .
Id. Accordingly ,
because
the Court
i s bound
by Dimaya
the Cour t must
conc lude
924(c) (3) B) i s void
for
vagueness . As
a
r e su l t ,
the Court cannot
r e ly
on the re s idua l
c lause in 924 (c)
(3)
B) to conclude t ha t
372
i s a cr ime o f
vio lence .
For
these
reasons ,
the Court concludes on t h i s
record t h a t
372
i s
not
a cr ime of v io lence with in the meaning o f
924(c)
(3) ,
and,
t he re fo re ,
Count
Three must
be
dismissed.
CONCLUSION
For
these reasons , the Court GR NTS Defendants ' Motion
(#465)
to Dismiss
and ISMISSES
Count Three
of the
Superseding
Indictment .
IT IS SO ORDERED.
D TED
t h i s
10th day o f
June,
2016.
NN J . BROWN
United Sta t e s D is t r i c t
Judge
16 - ORDER GR NTING MOTION (#465) TO DISMISS ND DISMISSING COUNT
THREE OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 671 Filed 06/10/16 Page 16 of 16