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. Robertson

United States District Court, D. Nevada

October 6, 2014

United States of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Arquarius Robertson, Cortaz Robertson, and William

[Docs. 40, 43, 60, 67, 68]

JENNIFER A. DORSEY, District Judge.

Defendants Arquarius Robertson, Cortaz Robertson, and William Morrow are charged with the armed robbery of the Palace Station Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada, and conspiracy to commit that robbery. Doc. 1. To each of these charges, the government has tied an 18 U.S.C. ยง 924(c) firearm count. Id. Defendant Arquarius Robertson moves to dismiss the second 924(c) charge (count 4) as duplicative of the 924(c) charge in count 2 and a violation of double jeopardy. Doc. 40. Magistrate Judge Ferenbach recommends denying the motion and Cortaz Robertson's request to join in it[1] because the two charges rely on separate sets of facts and predicate offenses, and the determination that a conviction would be multiplicitous is premature because the scope of evidence the government will introduce at trial remains to be seen. Doc. 60. Both Robertsons object. Docs. 67, 68.

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") de novo, I overrule all of Arquarius Robertson's objections and adopt Magistrate Judge Ferenbach's findings and recommendations with the lone exception of granting Cortaz Robertson's joinder request because I sustain one of his objections on a technical matter that does not undermine the soundness of Judge Ferenbach's ruling, and I deny the motion to dismiss count 4.

Discussion

A. Review of a Magistrate Judge's Challenged Report and Recommendation.

When a Magistrate Judge recommends disposition of a motion to dismiss an indictment, "[t]he magistrate judge must enter on the record a recommendation for disposing of the matter, including any proposed findings of fact."[2] To dispute the recommendation, a party has 14 days to "serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.... Failure to object in accordance with this rule waives a party's right to review."[3] The district court reviews objections to a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations de novo [4] and "may accept, reject, or modify the recommendation, receive further evidence, or resubmit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions."[5] Local Rule IB 3-2(b) requires de novo consideration of specific objections only.[6] The standard of review for unobjected-to portions of the report and recommendation is left to the district judge's discretion.[7] As Arquarius Robertson's objections are essentially a reurging of the arguments in his motion, my de novo review of his objections results in a de novo review of the motion itself.

B. Arquarius Robertson's Objections

Defendant Arquarius Robertson moves under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3) to dismiss the 924(c) firearm charge in count 4 of his indictment as duplicative of the 924(c) charge in count 2. Doc. 40. He objects to the recommendation that I deny that motion by disputing as "error" Magistrate Judge Ferenbach's finding that the charges are factually distinct. Doc. 67. Arquarius Robertson argues that the conspiracy and robbery charges are based on a single robbery on December 14, 2009, and cannot support two 924(c) counts. Id. at 4. He also criticizes the magistrate judge's reliance on 924(c) cases in the drug trafficking context, asserting that the analysis differs for violent crimes. Id. at 6-8. The government contends that Robertson's focus on the facts is misplaced because the test for double jeopardy is whether the charges are based on the same predicate offense, not the same facts. Doc. 70 at 4. And it distinguishes Robertson's extrajurisdictional case law on the facts and highlights the postural differences when analyzing this issue in connection with charges versus convictions. Id. at 5-6. I am not persuaded by Robertson's arguments, and I overrule his objections.

1. The 924(c) counts rely on different facts.

Arquarius Robertson first objects that Magistrate Judge Ferenbach erred in concluding that the 924(c) charges are factually distinct because the conspiracy charge (to which count 2 is attached) arises from conduct "[b]eginning on a date unknown, and continuing through... December 14, 2009, " while the robbery charge (to which count 4 is tied) covers only December 14, 2009. See Doc. 1 at 2-3; Doc. 60 at 5; Doc. 67 at 4. My review of the indictment confirms this temporal distinction between the conspiracy charge and the Hobbs Act robbery charge. Doc. 1 at 2-3. This language suggests that the conspiracy charge is based, in part, on acts that predate December 14th, distinguishing it from the robbery count, which is limited to acts on December 14th. Indeed, the government notes in its oppositions to both the motion and the objections that, at trial, it plans to introduce evidence of conduct occurring a week before the December 14th robbery. Docs. 56, 70.[8]

But it is not only the predicate-offense charges that contain this differentiating language: the 924(c) counts do, too. Count 2 alleges use of a firearm "[b]eginning on a date unknown, and continuing through... December 14, 2009, " while count 4 alleges use only on December 14th. Doc. 1 at 3-4. The timeline - and thus, the set of facts - on which these offenses is different and makes these charges factually distinct, as Magistrate Judge Ferenbach concluded. Doc. 60 at 5.

2. The predicate offenses are distinct.

More important to this discussion and the determination of whether count 4 should be dismissed as multiplicitous is that the 924(c) counts are based on legally distinct predicate offenses. The double jeopardy clause protects a criminal defendant from being punished or prosecuted more than once for the same offense.[9] As the Ninth Circuit explained in United States v. Castaneda and its progeny, "[a]n indictment is multiplicative if the same offense and the same underlying facts that form the basis for that offense are used to support more than one firearm count."[10] Under this conjunctive test, overlapping facts are not enough; the elements of the predicate offenses must also be the same.[11]

As Judge Ferenbach correctly concluded, the predicate offenses in this case - Hobbs Act robbery and conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery - are legally distinct crimes. The Ninth Circuit has recognized that conspiracy and commission of a specific crime are separate predicate offenses for purposes of 924(c) charges, [12] and that conspiracy and the substantive offenses under the Hobbs Act do not merge.[13] As the gun charges in this indictment are ...


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.