United States v. Apel

676 F.3d 1202
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedApril 25, 2012
Docket11-50003
StatusPublished

This text of 676 F.3d 1202 (United States v. Apel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Apel, 676 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2012).

Opinion

676 F.3d 1202 (2012)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
John Dennis APEL, Defendant-Appellant.
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
John Dennis Apel, Defendant-Appellant.
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
John Dennis Apel, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 11-50003, 11-50004, 11-50005.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 13, 2012.
Filed April 25, 2012.

André Birotte, Jr., Robert E. Dugdale, and Mark R. Yohalem (argued), United States Attorney's Office, Los Angeles, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee.

Erwin Chemerinsky, Selwyn Chu, law student (argued), and Matthew Plunkett, law student (argued), Appellate Litigation Clinic, University of California Irvine School of Law, Irvine, CA, for the defendant-appellant.

Before: BARRY G. SILVERMAN and JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and JOHN R. TUNHEIM, District Judge.[*]

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant John Apel, who was subject to a pre-existing order barring him from *1203 Vandenberg Air Force Base, was convicted of three counts of trespassing on the base in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1382. After his convictions became final in district court, we decided United States v. Parker, 651 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir.2011). Parker held that because a stretch of highway running through Vandenberg AFB is subject to an easement "granted to the State of California, which later relinquished it to the County of Santa Barbara," the federal government lacks the exclusive right of possession of the area on which the trespass allegedly occurred; therefore, a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1382 cannot stand, regardless of an order barring a defendant from the base. 651 F.3d at 1184.

Although we question the correctness of Parker, it is binding, dispositive of this appeal, and requires that Apel's convictions be REVERSED.

NOTES

[*] The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Parker
651 F.3d 1180 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Apel
676 F.3d 1202 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
676 F.3d 1202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-apel-ca9-2012.