United States v. Wendy Bedoya

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Wendy Bedoya

671 F. App'x 971

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 22, 2016

Docket16-10053

StatusUnpublished

This text of 671 F. App'x 971 (United States v. Wendy Bedoya) 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. Wendy Bedoya, 671 F. App'x 971 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellants appeal the district court’s order affirming their convictions for violations of 41 C.F.R. § 102-74.390(b) and 41 C.F.R. § 102-74.385 following a bench trial before a magistrate judge. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

1. Appellants contend the trial judge erred by precluding evidence supporting a defense of entrapment by estoppel. A trial court’s decision to exclude evidence of a particular defense is reviewed de novo, United States v. Schafer, 625 F.3d 629, 637 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Brebner, 951 F.2d 1017, 1024 (9th Cir. 1991)), and a trial court may exclude such evidence if the defendant fails to make a prima facie showing that he is eligible for the defense, id. (citing United States v. Moreno, 102 F.3d 994, 997-98 (9th Cir. 1996)). Appellants’ proffer here did not establish a prima facie case supporting the defense. The allegations did not suggest that the. AUSA “affirmatively told [the defendant] the proscribed conduct was permissible,” id. and “vague or even contradictory” comments are not sufficient to establish the defense, United States v. Hancock, 231 F.3d 557, 567 (9th Cir. 2000). The trial judge did not err in excluding this evidence.

2. Appellants also contend that the government failed to present sufficient evidence of “actual notice” to support their convictions. The government presented evidence that a uniformed federal officer advised each defendant that they were in violation of federal law and that, if they left peacefully, they would not be prosecuted. Appellants, did not leave until three hours after this advisement. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, see Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellants had actual notice that their conduct violated federal law. See United States v. Bichsel, 395 F.3d 1053, 1057 (9th Cir. 2005).

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellants appeal the district court’s order affirming their convictions for violations of 41 C.F.R. § 102-74.390(b) and 41 C.F.R. § 102-74.385 following a bench trial before a magistrate judge. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

1. Appellants contend the trial judge erred by precluding evidence supporting a defense of entrapment by estoppel. A trial court’s decision to exclude evidence of a particular defense is reviewed de novo, United States v. Schafer, 625 F.3d 629, 637 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Brebner, 951 F.2d 1017, 1024 (9th Cir. 1991)), and a trial court may exclude such evidence if the defendant fails to make a prima facie showing that he is eligible for the defense, id. (citing United States v. Moreno, 102 F.3d 994, 997-98 (9th Cir. 1996)). Appellants’ proffer here did not establish a prima facie case supporting the defense. The allegations did not suggest that the. AUSA “affirmatively told [the defendant] the proscribed conduct was permissible,” id. and “vague or even contradictory” comments are not sufficient to establish the defense, United States v. Hancock, 231 F.3d 557, 567 (9th Cir. 2000). The trial judge did not err in excluding this evidence.

2. Appellants also contend that the government failed to present sufficient evidence of “actual notice” to support their convictions. The government presented evidence that a uniformed federal officer advised each defendant that they were in violation of federal law and that, if they left peacefully, they would not be prosecuted. Appellants, did not leave until three hours after this advisement. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, see Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellants had actual notice that their conduct violated federal law. See United States v. Bichsel, 395 F.3d 1053, 1057 (9th Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED.

***

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

671 F. App'x 971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-wendy-bedoya-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack