Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal by two individuals, Skar and Meyer, following their guilty plea to charges of manufacturing a satellite piracy device and aiding in the illegal interception of satellite communications, in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 2511(l)(a). The appeal was heard under the jurisdiction provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The appellants contended that they should be exempt from penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), arguing their offenses were related to business practices as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(2)(A). However, the district court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to address this claim, a determination that the appellate court upheld. Additionally, the appellate court conducted a de novo review and found that the appellants lacked standing to pursue their claims due to the speculative nature of any potential future harm. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, and the memorandum documenting this case is not intended for publication or citation, except under specific circumstances outlined by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Exemption under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Skar and Meyer claimed an exemption under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), asserting their offenses related to business practices per 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(2)(A), but the district court found it lacked jurisdiction on this issue.
Reasoning: Skar and Meyer argue they should be exempt from penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), claiming their offenses relate to business practices under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(2)(A).
Jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court has jurisdiction to review the sentences imposed on Skar and Meyer under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Reasoning: The court has jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirms the lower court's decision.
Non-Publication and Citation of Memorandumsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The memorandum in this case is not intended for publication or citation in this circuit except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Reasoning: This memorandum is not intended for publication or citation in this circuit except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Standing in Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court determined that Skar and Meyer lacked standing as any potential harm was speculative, thus affirming the district court's decision.
Reasoning: Upon de novo review, it is determined that Skar and Meyer lack standing due to the speculative nature of any potential future harm.