Cygnus Systems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, et al

Filing 12

ORDER pursuant to General Order 05-25 granting 8 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 9 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 10 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 11 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS, )(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.)

Download PDF
C y g n u s Systems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, et al D o c . 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 D IA N E J. HUMETEWA U n ite d States Attorney D is tric t of Arizona J A M E S A. DEVITTO S p e c ia l Assistant U.S. Attorney Evo A. Deconcini U.S. Courthouse 405 West Congress, Suite 4800 Tucson, Arizona 85701-5040 T e le p h o n e : 520-620-7300 j a m e s .d e v it t o @ u s d o j . g o v A tto rn e ys for Plaintiff U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT COURT D IS T R I C T OF ARIZONA U n ite d States of America, Plaintiff, v. E r a sm o Olivarez-Moreno, D efe n d a n t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C R -07 -04 2 3 -T U C -JM R (JC G ) G O V E R N M E N T 'S RESPONSE T O DEFENDANT'S MOTION T O DISMISS FOR FAILURE T O STATE AN ELEMENT OF T H E OFFENSE Plaintiff, United States of America, by its attorneys, Diane J. Humetewa, United S ta te s Attorney for the District of Arizona and James A. DeVitto, Special Assistant United S ta te s Attorney, hereby submits the following response to defendant's Motion to Dismiss f o r Failure to State an Element of the Offense as follows: On March 7, 2007, Defendant was indicted for re-entry after deportation under 8 U .S .C . 1326 as enhanced by 8 U.S. C. 1326(b)(2). The indictment reads as follows: O n or about February 7, 2007, at or near Douglas, in the D is tric t of Arizona, Erasmo Olivarez-Moreno, an alien, e n te re d and was found in the United States of America after h a v in g been denied admission, excluded, deported, and re m o v e d therefrom at or near Nogales, Arizona on or about F e b ru a ry 5, 2007, and not having obtained the express consent o f the Attorney General or the Secretary of the Department of H o m e lan d Security to reapply for admission thereto; in v io la ti o n of Title 8, United States Code, Section 1326, en h an ce d by Title 8, United States Code, Section 1326(b)(2). Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-227, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L .E d .2 d 350 (1998), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the question of whether an in d ic tm e n t for a violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326 as enhanced by 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(2) must in c l u d e a defendant's prior aggravated felony conviction and held as follows: W e conclude that the [1326(b)(2)] subsection is a penalty p ro v is io n , which simply authorizes a court to increase the s e n te n c e for recidivist. It does not define a separate crime. C o n s e q u e n tly, neither the statute nor the Constitution requires th e Government to charge the factor that it mentions, the e a rlie r conviction, in the indictment. Subsequently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in United States v. MartinezR o d r ig u e z, 472 F.3d. 1087, 1092-93 (9 th Cir. 2007), cited Almendarez-Torres in their h o ld i n g as follows: [ I]n United States v. Reyes-Pacheco, 248 F.3d 942, 943-44 (9 th Cir. 2001), the defendant contended that "the district court im p ro p e rly enhanced his [1326] sentence on the basis of a p rio r aggravated felony conviction that was neither admitted n o r charged in the indictment and proven beyond a reasonable d o u b t." We found that the defendant's argument was f o re c lo s e d by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 2 2 4 , 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). ReyesP a c h e co , 248 F.3d at 944. In Almendarez-Torres, the S u p r e m e Court held that 1326(b)(2) "simply authorizes a c o u rt to increase the sentence for recidivist. It does not define a separate crime." 523 U.S. at 226, 118 S.Ct. 1219. The Court in Almendarez-Torres rejected the argument that, because the f a ct of recidivism increased the maximum term to which a d e f en d a n t could be sentenced, recidivism was an element of th e crime that must be charged in the indictment and proven b e yo n d a reasonable doubt. Id. at 239, 118 S.Ct. 1219. We hold that "[t]he district court did not err by considering [ M a rtin e z 's ] prior aggravated felony conviction[s] despite the f a ct that such conduct was neither admitted nor charged in the in d ic tm e n t, presented to a jury, and proven beyond a re a so n a b le doubt." Reyes-Pacheco, 248 F.3d at 945. Defendant's sole contention in his motion is that as an element of the offense, the ind ictm en t must contain the date of defendant's underlying felony conviction. However, 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 d e f e n d a n t's contention is without merit as the U.S. Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit C o u rt of Appeals have ruled otherwise. Due to the above, defendant's motion must be dismissed. . Respectfully submitted this 27 th day of December, 2007. D IA N E J. HUMETEWA U n ite d States Attorney D is tric t of Arizona s/J a m e s A. Devitto J A M E S A. DEVITTO S p e c ia l Assistant United States Attorney C o p y of the foregoing served electronically o r by other means this 27 th day of December, 2007, to: M a tth e w J. McGuire, Esq. A tto rn e y for Defendant 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.