United States v. Timothy Wayne Arnett, United States of America v. Timothy Wayne Arnett

353 F.3d 765, 2003 WL 23010239
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided December 24, 2003·No. 00-10170, 00-30189·Published·Cited by 19 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On November 25, 2003, only two weeks before these eight-year-old cases were *766 scheduled for oral argument before this en banc court, the United States filed a supplemental brief in which it confessed error on the collateral estoppel issue:

In federal criminal trials, the United States may not use collateral estoppel to establish, as a matter of law, an element of an offense or to conclusively rebut an affirmative defense on which the Government bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

In our Case No. 00-10170, the confession of error affects each of the counts charging use of a firearm during a crime of violence, which are Counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14. The convictions on those counts are REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for retrial or other appropriate disposition of those counts. The convictions on Counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15 are AFFIRMED. The sentence imposed in the judgment filed on March 29, 2000, is VACATED pending further proceedings on remand.

The memorandum disposition filed on April 24, 2003, which was withdrawn by this court’s order of October 3, 2003, is hereby reinstated. Any sentencing issues raised under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), may be considered as necessary on remand.

The judgment in Case No. 00-10170 is AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.

The judgment in Case No. 00-30189 is AFFIRMED in all respects.

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

United States v. Timothy Wayne Arnett, United States of America v. Timothy Wayne Arnett, 353 F.3d 765, 2003 WL 23010239 (9th Cir. 2003).

353 F.3d 765 (United States v. Timothy Wayne Arnett, United States of America v. Timothy Wayne Arnett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Jones
43 F.4th 94 (Second Circuit, 2022)
United States v. Luke Wilson
13 F.4th 961 (Ninth Circuit, 2021)
State v. Huffine
2018 MT 175 (Montana Supreme Court, 2018)
State v. Davis
335 P.3d 1266 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2014)
United States v. Jerilee Head
707 F.3d 1026 (Eighth Circuit, 2013)
State v. Allen
31 A.3d 476 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2011)
United States v. Marguet-Pillado
648 F.3d 1001 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Sierra-Ledesma
645 F.3d 1213 (Tenth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Sandoval-Gonzalez
642 F.3d 717 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Allen v. State
995 A.2d 1013 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 2010)
United States v. Sablan
302 F. App'x 735 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
State v. Dempsey
193 P.3d 874 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 2008)
United States v. Arnett
181 F. App'x 686 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
State v. Scarbrough
181 S.W.3d 650 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2005)
State of Tennessee v. David Scarbrough
Tennessee Supreme Court, 2005
United States v. Genaro Smith-Baltiher
424 F.3d 913 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)