Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Carman
Citation: 341 F. App'x 345Docket: Nos. 08-50188, 08-50236
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; August 11, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
John Alan Carman appeals his conviction for conspiracy to kidnap in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 956, while the government cross-appeals regarding his sentence. The court affirms the conviction but vacates the sentence, remanding for resentencing. The review of Carman's motion for acquittal is conducted de novo, and the court agrees with the district court's finding that sufficient evidence existed for a reasonable juror to conclude that the essential elements of the offense were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution provided substantial circumstantial evidence of an agreement between Carman and George Lane, and it is noted that most conspiracy convictions rely on such evidence, allowing juries to infer agreements from defendants' actions. Carman’s intent to kidnap KAM for ransom was also supported by the evidence, despite his arguments to the contrary. The jury's credibility determinations regarding witnesses, including Eloy Fernandez, who faced scrutiny but remained credible in the jury's eyes, are upheld. The court finds no merit in Carman's claim of entrapment, as a rational juror could conclude the government did not induce the kidnapping and that Carman was predisposed to commit the crime. Carman's challenge to the vagueness of 18 U.S.C. § 956 is also reviewed de novo and found to be without merit. The jury was properly instructed on the definition of kidnapping as per 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a), ensuring that the jurors were not free to define the offense arbitrarily. The court highlights that the term "unlawfully" was included in defining the offense, preventing any potential for a lawful arrest to be misconstrued as kidnapping. Thus, the statute is deemed not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Carman. Reviewing the district court's interpretation of U.S.S.G. 2A4.1 is conducted de novo, while its application of the provision to the facts is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The court identified a procedural error in the district court's failure to apply a six-level upward adjustment under U.S.S.G. 2A4.1(b)(1), which was deemed harmful. Incorrect calculation of the Guidelines range constitutes procedural error, necessitating remand under 18 U.S.C. 3742(f)(1). Carman conceded to an error regarding the application of Apprendi v. New Jersey, noting that the adjustment did not increase the penalty beyond the statutory maximum. The district court's conclusion that it could not determine with reasonable certainty Carman's intent to demand ransom was also identified as an abuse of discretion. The jury had found Carman intended to demand a $500,000 ransom, a fact supported by the prosecution's evidence. By favoring the defense's theory despite the jury's decision, the district court erred. The sixty-month sentence is vacated and remanded for resentencing, requiring a recalculation of the Guidelines range with the upward adjustment applied. The judgment in case No. 08-50188 is affirmed, while the cross-appeal in No. 08-50236 leads to a vacated and remanded sentence. This ruling is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent except as outlined by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.