United States v. David Camez

Ninth Circuit

United States v. David Camez

659 F. App'x 443

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 17, 2016

Docket14-10251

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 659 F. App'x 443 (United States v. David Camez) 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. David Camez, 659 F. App'x 443 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant David Camez timely appeals his convictions and sentence, following a jury trial, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizátions Act. We affirm.

1. In a separately filed opinion, we reject Defendant’s challenges concerning the fact that he was under the age of 18 when he committed certain acts.

2. Sufficient evidence supports the jury’s finding that Defendant participated “in the operation or management of the enterprise itself.” Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170, 185, 113 S.Ct. 1163, 122 L.Ed.2d 525 (1993); see Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (describing the standard for challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence). Defendant was a “member” of the enterprise; he purchased many items from several vendors; he sold some items. He also took many actions that concerned the functioning of the enterprise itself. For example, he left feedback on the quality of many sellers; he reported one seller who allegedly had defrauded him; he posted many comments that helped others undertake scams, in effect directing others on how to carry out the goals of the enterprise more effectively; and he posted an explanation about one of the enterprise’s rules. Defendant’s involvement greatly exceeded the involvement of *444 the defendants in Walter v. Drayson, 538 F.3d 1244, 1248 (9th Cir. 2008), Webster v. Omnitrition International, Inc., 79 F.3d 776, 789 (9th Cir. 1996), and Baumer v. Pachl, 8 F.3d 1341, 1344 (9th Cir. 1993).

3. Because the prosecutor did not misstate the evidence, Defendant’s assertion of prosecutorial misconduct fails.

4. Because the far-below-Guidelines sentence was reasonable, the district court did not abuse its discretion in selecting the sentence.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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