Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-11-50005/USCOURTS-ca9-11-50005-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Dennis Apel
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOHN DENNIS APEL,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-50003

D.C. No.

2:10-cr-00830-

JFW-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOHN DENNIS APEL,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-50004

D.C. No.

2:10-cr-00869-

JFW-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOHN DENNIS APEL,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-50005

D.C. No.

2:10-cr-00831-

JFW-1

ORDER AND

AMENDED

OPINION

 Case: 11-50005, 09/22/2014, ID: 9247660, DktEntry: 55, Page 1 of 3
2 UNITED STATES V. APEL

On Remand From The United States Supreme Court

Filed August 14, 2014

Amended September 22, 2014

Before: Barry G. Silverman and Johnnie B. Rawlinson,

Circuit Judges, and John R. Tunheim, District Judge.*

Per Curiam Opinion

COUNSEL

Erwin Chemerinsky, Selwyn Chu (argued) and Matthew

Plunkett (argued), law students, University of California,

Irvine School of Law, for Defendant-Appellant.

André Birotte Jr., United States Attorney, Robert E. Dugdale

and Mark R. Yohalem (argued), Assistant United States

Attorneys, Los Angeles, California, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

ORDER

Appellant John Apel’s Petition for Panel Rehearing is

GRANTED. The Per Curiam Opinion filed on August 14,

2014 is amended to conform to the attached Amended

Opinion.

* The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

 Case: 11-50005, 09/22/2014, ID: 9247660, DktEntry: 55, Page 2 of 3
UNITED STATES V. APEL 3

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

On February 26, 2014, the United States Supreme Court

vacated our opinion at 676 F.3d 1202 and remanded the case

to us for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. 

United States v. Apel, __ U.S. __, 134 S.Ct. 1144 (2014). 

Appellant John Apel was barred from Vandenberg Air Force

Base, a “closed base,” after he twice trespassed beyond the

designated protest area, including one incident where he

threw blood on a sign for the base, and he has conceded that

he does not challenge the validity of the barment order.1

In

light of the Supreme Court’s decision, Apel’s challenge to the

applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 1382 to the facts of his case is

denied. As to Apel’s defense that his conviction violates the

First Amendment, we agree with the district court’s

conclusion that “whether or not the designated protest area at

Vandenberg Air Force Base is a public forum, the military

may properly exclude recipients of valid bar letters, such as

Mr. Apel, without violating the First Amendment.” See

United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 687–89 (1985);

United States v. Walsh, 770 F.2d 1490, 1493 (9th Cir. 1985)

(“Albertini indicates that whether or not a base is a public

forum, the military may exclude recipients of bar letters

without violating the First Amendment.”).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

1 S. Ct. Oral Arg. at 36, available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_

arguments/argument_transcripts/12-1038_d18f.pdf

 Case: 11-50005, 09/22/2014, ID: 9247660, DktEntry: 55, Page 3 of 3