United States v. Maria Gonzalez
This text of United States v. Maria Gonzalez (United States v. Maria Gonzalez) 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.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 13 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 19-30270, 20-30000 20-30018, 20-30044 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 1:18-cr-02039-SAB-1 v. 1:18-cr-02039-SAB-3 1:18-cr-02039-SAB-2 MARIA ANDREA GONZALEZ, et al., 1:18-cr-02039-SAB-4
Defendant-Appellant. MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Stanley A. Bastian, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted September 1, 2021 Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, TASHIMA, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Maria Andrea Gonzalez, Brooklyn Marie Hernandez-Proctor, Nicole Lee
Sunny Cloud, and Latisha Lavern Birdsong (collectively “Defendants”) were state
and federal inmates housed at Yakima County Jail (“Yakima”). While there,
Defendants sexually assaulted a fellow federal inmate. They were charged with
violating 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a)(1) and (2), conditionally pled guilty, and were
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. sentenced. Now, Defendants appeal the denial of their motions to dismiss their
indictments and their criminal judgments, arguing that federal jurisdiction was
lacking under Section 2241(a) and that Congress overreached in Section 2241(a) by
criminalizing their conduct at a state jail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
We review de novo both the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment,
United States v. Marguet-Pillardo, 560 F.3d 1078, 1081 (9th Cir. 2009), and a
challenge to a criminal statute for unconstitutional overreach of congressional
authority, United States v. Mujahid, 799 F.3d 1228, 1232 (9th Cir. 2015).
Defendants argue that the government has not met the jurisdictional element
of Section 2241(a), which proscribes sexual assault at facilities “in which persons
are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the
head of any Federal department or agency.” 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a) (emphasis added).
Accordingly, the government needed to show that Yakima is a “facility in which
persons are held in custody” either (1) “by direction of . . . the head of any Federal
department or agency,” or (2) “pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of
any Federal department or agency.” Id. Because Yakima is a facility where persons,
namely the victim, were held in federal custody by direction of the United States
Marshal Service, the government has met the jurisdictional element of Section
2241(a).
2 Defendants also argue that 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a) is unconstitutional as applied
to them. In Mujahid, we held that Section 2241 is facially constitutional because it
is
“a ‘necessary and proper’ means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned, and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned but who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others.”
Mujahid, 799 F.3d at 1235–36 (quoting United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126,
149 (2010)).
For the same reasons described in Mujahid, Section 2241(a) is constitutional
as applied to Defendants—individuals in state and federal custody who sexually
assaulted another federal inmate at the same facility. See Mujahid, 799 F.3d at 1235–
36 (weighing the factors set forth in Comstock to determine whether Section 2241 is
within the scope of Congress’s authority). The federal government plainly has an
interest in protecting federal inmates from sexual abuse. See also United States v.
Pacheco, 977 F.3d 764, 769 (9th Cir. 2020) (“The evolution of [18 U.S.C. §§ 2241–
2244] over time affirms Congress’s intent to broadly protect federal detainees from
sexual abuse.”).
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Maria Gonzalez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-maria-gonzalez-ca9-2021.