Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-96-10489/USCOURTS-ca9-96-10489-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Martin Bailie
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

Not for Publication 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

MAY19198 

CATHY A. CATTERSON, CLERK 

US. COURT OF APPEALS 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

* 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

* 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

* 

V. 

* 

JOSEPH MARTIN BAILIE, 

* 

* 

Defendant-Appellant. 

* 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

No. 96-10489 

D.C. No. CR-96-00001-2-HDM 

MEMORANDUM * 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Nevada 

Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding 

Submitted May 15, 1998** 

San Francisco, California 

Before: LAY***, KOZINSKI, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable 

doubt that Bailie used a firearm (i.e., a bomb) in relation to a 

crime of violence. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not 

be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 

9th Cir. R. 36-3. 

** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision 

without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4. 

*** The Honorable Donald P. Lay, Senior United States Circuit 

Judge for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting by designation. 

 Case: 96-10489, 05/19/1998, ID: 3455460, DktEntry: 31, Page 1 of 2
page 2 

(1979). The prosecution's evidence included testimony of coconspirator Hurst that Bailie did participate in the offense and 

testimony indicating that a pair of pliers found in Bailie's truck 

had made the cuts on the wire used in the device, that the duct 

tape used was the same as the tape taken from Bailie's truck, and 

that the day before the crime Bailie was seen picking up a barrel 

that matched the description of the one used in the explosive device. 

Conviction and punishment for Count 3 (violating 18 U.S.C. § 

924(c)(1)) in addition to Counts 1 and 2 (conspiracy and attempt 

to violate 18 U.S.C. § 844(f)) does not create a double jeopardy 

problem simply because a single destructive device formed the basis of all three offenses. "Congress intended to punish both the 

crime of violence effected by the use of the bomb under 18 U.S.C. 

[§ 844] and, cumulatively, to add the punishment for carrying the 

bomb in relation to this crime of violence. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) 

and (2)." United States v. Mathews 36 F.3d 821, 823 (9th Cir. 

1994). See also United States v. Collins, 109 F.3d 1413, 1420 

(9th Cir. 1997). 

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 96-10489, 05/19/1998, ID: 3455460, DktEntry: 31, Page 2 of 2