Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Brown

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

November 21, 2017

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Bud Ray Brown, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued and Submitted October 3, 2017 Seattle, Washington

         Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00019-JLQ Justin L. Quackenbush, Senior District Judge, Presiding

          Bryan Paul Whitaker (argued), Spokane, Washington, for Defendant-Appellant.

          Russell E. Smoot (argued), Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, Spokane, Washington, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

          Before: Kermit Victor Lipez, [*] Kim McLane Wardlaw, and John B. Owens, Circuit Judges.

         SUMMARY[**]

         Criminal Law

         The panel affirmed the district court's denial of a pre-plea motion to dismiss an indictment in a case in which the defendant pleaded guilty to attempted escape in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a).

         The defendant moved to dismiss on two grounds. His jurisdictional claim asserted that the district court could not charge him under § 751(a) because he was not in federal custody at the time of the attempted escape. His prosecutorial vindictiveness claim argued that the timing of the indictment - filed approximately five months after the attempted escape and only after the defendant's declaration was introduced in his cell mate's trial - created a presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness.

         The panel held that the defendant's unconditional guilty plea does not preclude this court from considering the merits of his appeal because both of the defendant's challenges qualify as jurisdictional claims.

         The panel held that a federal prisoner remains in federal "custody" for purposes of § 751(a), even when housed at a state institution pursuant to writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, and that the district court therefore did not err in refusing to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction.

         The panel held that the district court likewise did not err in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss on prosecutorial vindictiveness grounds. The panel explained that the mere fact that the government decided to indict the defendant after obtaining his written declaration does not create a presumption of vindictiveness.

          OPINION

          LIPEZ, Circuit Judge.

         For the first time in this circuit, we address the impact of a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum on the question of whether an inmate serving a federal sentence remains under "the custody of the Attorney General" as per 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) when he is held at a state-run institution pursuant to the writ. Bud Ray Brown appeals the district court's denial of his pre-plea motion to dismiss, filed, in part, on the ground that he was not in federal custody as a matter of law at the time of the attempted escape. We now hold that Brown remained under the custody of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.