Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-13-50215/USCOURTS-ca9-13-50215-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Deondrae Jackson
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.

DEONDRAE JACKSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-50215

D.C. No.

2:12-cr-00510-PSG-1

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

June 4, 2014—Pasadena, California

Filed June 18, 2014

Before: Stephen Reinhardt, John T. Noonan,

and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Reinhardt;

Concurrence by Judge Murguia

 Case: 13-50215, 06/18/2014, ID: 9136382, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 1 of 6
2 UNITED STATES V. JACKSON

SUMMARY*

Criminal Law

Reversing a misdemeanor conviction for violating 18

U.S.C. § 701, the panel held that no rational finder of fact

could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that an

identification card the defendant was accused of unlawfully

manufacturing or possessing was, as § 701 requires, “of the

design prescribed by the head of any department or agency of

the United States.” 

The defendant was a maintenance worker at the

Maintenance Center on the Marine Corps Logistics Base in

Barstow, California. The panel wrote that although this is not

one of the more significant criminal cases to reach this court

in recent years, the defendant had little choice but to make

every effort to have his conviction set aside because the

United States succeeded in obtaining the conviction without

proving its case.

Judge Murguia concurred in the opinion’s description of

the evidence and its determination that no rational finder of

fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the

defendant’s identification card was “of the design prescribed

by the head” of the Maintenance Center or the Marine Corps

Logistics Base.

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 13-50215, 06/18/2014, ID: 9136382, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 2 of 6
UNITED STATES V. JACKSON 3

COUNSEL

Davina T. Chen (argued), Glendale, California, for

Defendant-Appellant.

Sharon McCaslin (argued), Assistant United States Attorney;

André Birotte Jr., United States Attorney; and Robert E.

Dugdale, Assistant United States Attorney, Los Angeles,

California, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

OPINION

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:

I. BACKGROUND

This is not one of the more significant criminal cases to

reach this court in recent years. Yet, because the United

States succeeded in obtaining the conviction of Deondrae

Jackson without proving its case, Mr. Jackson had little

choice but to make every effort to have his conviction set

aside. Fortunately, for him and the justice system, Mr.

Jackson had the benefit of the Federal Public Defender

system, which effectively exposed the obvious holes in the

government’s case. The fine imposed on Mr. Jackson was

only $150, which may seem insufficient cause for invoking

the might and authority of the United States District Court

and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,

but to Mr. Jackson this case is as important as, if not more

important than, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,

695 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2012), rev’g 877 F. Supp. 2d 838

(N.D. Cal. 2012), is to those parties. Given the United States

 Case: 13-50215, 06/18/2014, ID: 9136382, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 3 of 6
4 UNITED STATES V. JACKSON

Attorney’s Office’s insistence on prosecuting his case, Mr.

Jackson may well be right, at least from his standpoint.

Mr. Jackson was a maintenance worker at the Marine

Corps Logistics Base in Barstow, California. To enter the

base, all employees needed a “CAC Card,” which a naval

police officer called to testify described as the “government

card.” An additional, yellow card was issued to employees of

the Maintenance Center, for the purposes of “quick

identification.” There was apparently no secret activity

undertaken at the Maintenance Center, and the yellow card

was required primarily for administrative purposes.

Mr. Jackson apparently had difficulty keeping track of his

yellow card. Two or three times, he misplaced or lost it and

was required to obtain a new one. The last time Mr. Jackson

lost his card, there appears to have been some confusion as to

why he was not given a new one. The United States says that

it was because he did not have his CAC Card with him, but he

had just been issued a new CAC Card that day, after the

Base’s Chief of Police told the functionary in charge of

dispensing cards to give him one. Then the story goes murky;

it appears that Mr. Jackson himself may have created a new

yellow card, although he insists that it was another

functionary who did so.

Now come the weighty legal issues. The United States

charged Mr. Jackson with committing the misdemeanor of

“manufactur[ing], sell[ing], or possess[ing] any badge,

identification card, or other insignia, of the design prescribed

by the head of any department or agency of the United States

for use by any officer or employee thereof, or any colorable

imitation thereof, . . . except as authorized under regulations

made pursuant to law . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 701 (emphasis

 Case: 13-50215, 06/18/2014, ID: 9136382, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 4 of 6
UNITED STATES V. JACKSON 5

added). Mr. Jackson appeals his conviction, arguing that there

was insufficient evidence that (1) the yellow card was “of the

design prescribed by the head of any department or agency of

the United States,” and (2) he in fact manufactured or

possessed an unauthorized yellow card.

Because the evidence introduced at trial does not support

the conclusion that the yellow card Mr. Jackson was

convicted of manufacturing or possessing was “of the design

prescribed by the head of any department or agency of the

United States,” we reverse without reaching his second claim.

II. ANALYSIS

At trial, the only evidence introduced as to who, if

anyone, had prescribed the design of the yellow card came in

the form of testimony by two Base employees.

Clarence Sanchez, a radar technician and the president of

the employee union, testified that “when [the badge] first

came in or was first introduced, . . . we [the union] discussed

this with – you know, with management of what this was

supposed to be for.” He did not, however, specify whether

“management” meant that of the Base or the Maintenance

Center,1or whether it meant the officer or officers in charge

of labor relations, security, or some other Base or

Maintenance Center function. He said nothing whatsoever

about who, if anyone, “prescribed” the design of the yellow

card; in fact, his testimony suggested that the design of the

badge was constantly in flux, seemingly “on a day-to-day”

1 While we do not reach the issue, we doubt whether the Maintenance

Center – which counsel for the United States stated at argument was the

relevant issuing “agency” – is an “agency,” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 6.

 Case: 13-50215, 06/18/2014, ID: 9136382, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 5 of 6
6 UNITED STATES V. JACKSON

basis. The only other testimony even tangentially relevant to

who had prescribed the design of the yellow card was the

statement of Jose Rafael Amador, a naval police officer

responsible for checking identification cards, that “the

Maintenance Center came up with” the badge for its

employees. This testimony, too, provided no evidence

whatsoever that “the head of any department or agency”

“prescribed . . . the design” of the yellow card.

The district court clearly erred in finding that the

testimony adequately supported the charge. Based on the

evidence presented at trial, no rational finder of fact could

have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the yellow

card Mr. Jackson was accused of manufacturing or possessing

was, as 18 U.S.C. § 701 requires, “of the design prescribed by

the head of any department or agency of the United States.”

Mr. Jackson’s conviction is reversed, and he need not pay

the $150 fine.

REVERSED.

MURGUIA, Circuit Judge, concurring:

I concur in the opinion’s description of the evidence in the

record and its determination that no rational finder of fact

could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr.

Jackson’s yellow card was “of the design prescribed by the

head” of the Maintenance Center or the Marine Corps

Logistics Base. See 18 U.S.C. § 701. Accordingly, I concur

in reversing Mr. Jackson’s conviction.

 Case: 13-50215, 06/18/2014, ID: 9136382, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 6 of 6