Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves multiple defendants charged with using a firearm during a crime of violence, as outlined under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), with assault on a person aiding a federal officer (18 U.S.C. § 111) and robbery of government property (18 U.S.C. § 2112) as predicate offenses. The defendants contested the classification of these predicates as crimes of violence, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Johnson I on the vagueness of the residual clause. The court denied the motions to dismiss, affirming § 111 as a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3) using the categorical approach but excluded § 2112 from this classification. The court deemed the residual clause of § 924(c)(3) unconstitutionally vague, following Johnson II, which invalidated similar language in the ACCA. The court highlighted the divisibility of § 111, allowing § 111(b) to serve as a predicate offense. The court's decision maintains the validity of the firearm charge against the defendants, while acknowledging the constitutional challenges posed by the residual clause. A future status conference was scheduled, and the defendants' joinder motion was granted. The decision reflects complex statutory interpretations and aligns with existing Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court precedents.
Legal Issues Addressed
Categorical Approach in Determining Crimes of Violencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court used the categorical approach to assess whether the offenses met the definition of a crime of violence, emphasizing that § 111(b) is a crime of violence based on its elements.
Reasoning: A court utilizing the categorical approach evaluates whether an offense qualifies as a 'crime of violence' by comparing its elements to the federal definition outlined in § 924(c)(3).
Divisibility of Statutes for Predicate Offensessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court recognized § 111 as a divisible statute, allowing § 111(b) to be used as a predicate crime of violence under § 924(c).
Reasoning: Since § 111(a) is not classified as a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3), but § 111(b) is, Count Two can serve as a predicate crime of violence for the § 924(c) charge, provided § 111 is treated as a divisible statute.
Force Requirement under 18 U.S.C. § 111(b)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reiterated that § 111(b) requires 'violent force' as defined by Ninth Circuit precedent and Supreme Court interpretations.
Reasoning: Conversely, section 111(b) is recognized as a crime of violence, as confirmed by the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Juvenile Female.
Residual Clause under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3) and Constitutional Vaguenesssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The residual clause was deemed unconstitutionally vague based on principles established in Johnson II, paralleling issues found in the ACCA's residual clause.
Reasoning: The section 924(c)(3) residual clause is deemed unconstitutional under the principles outlined in Johnson II due to its inherent indeterminacy when applying the categorical approach.
Use of a Firearm During a Crime of Violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that assault under 18 U.S.C. § 111 qualifies as a crime of violence, while robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2112 does not, allowing § 111 to serve as a predicate for the § 924(c) charge.
Reasoning: The court denied these motions, determining that while § 2112 does not qualify as a crime of violence, § 111 does.