T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he H onor abl e B r e ttM . K a va na ugh, C i r c ui tJ udge f orthe D i s tr i c tof ** C ol um bi aC i r c ui t , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. H O B E R T P A R K E R , J r ., D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10 -502 48 (L ea d C as e) N o. 10- 50250 N o. 10- 50251 D . C . N o. 2: 09 -c r- 00 51 5-A H M -1 D . C . N o. 2: 09 -c r- 00 51 7-A H M -1 D . C . N o. 2: 09 -c r- 00 51 8-A H M -1

ME MOR AN DU M * A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia A . H ow a r d M a t z , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 11, 2011 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , W A R D L A W an d K A V A N A U G H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. ** H obe r tP a rke r , J r . , appe a l s hi s m i s de m e a norc onvi c t i ons , a f t e rr e tr i a l , of thr e e c ount s of

vi ol a t i ng 18 U . S . C . § 1382. H e a r gue s tha thi s r e tr i a l vi ol a t e d the 

# FI LED MA Y24 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

p r o s c r ip tio n a g a in s t d o u b le je o p a r d y , th a t th e r e w a s in s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to c onvi c t , a nd tha thi s c onvi c t i ons vi ol a t e hi s F i r s tA m e ndm e ntr i ght s . W e ha ve ju r is d ic tio n p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v e r s e . W e a d d r e s s th e in s u f

f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e a r g u m e n t f ir s t. Se e P olar Shi ppi ng L td. v . O r i e ntal

Shi ppi ng C or

p. , 6 8 0 F .2 d 6 2 7 , 6 3 0 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 2 ) ( c o u r ts shou l d n otpass up on a c on st i tut i on al qu es t i on i f there i s ano ncon st i tut i on al grou nd up on w hi ch the ca se m aybe deci ded). W e r evi ew de no vo the suff i ci ency o f th e e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t th e c o n v ic tio n . U ni te d State s v . Stanton , 501 F . 3d 1093, 10 99 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). T here i s s uffi ci entevi dence t o sup po rta c on vi ct i on i f, “v ie w in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e p r o s e c u tio n , any ra t i on al tr i e rof f a c tc oul d ha ve f

ound the e s s e nt i a l e l e m e nt s of the c r i m e be y ond a re as on abl e dou bt . ” Id . P a rk e r ’s c h a r g e s a r o s e f r o m h is p r o te s t a c tiv itie s o n O c e a n A v e n u e , w h ic h is ap u b lic r o a d th a t c r o s s e s th e V a n d e n b e r g A irF o r c e B a s e ( “V A F B ” ) in S a n ta B arbaraC ou nty, C al i forni a. O n eac h o f the three occa si on s c harged, P arker w as ca rryi ng si gn s of prot es tagai nstV A F B m i l i t ary pol i ce al on g the shou l der of O ce an A ve nue . E a c h t i m e , P a rke rw a s a dvi s e d bym i l i t a ry of f i c e r s tha the w a s not perm i tt ed t o p rot es ton O ce an A venu e a nd thatthe V A F B C om m ander had desi gn at ed a prot es tar eaou t si de the V A F B M ai n G at e. E ac h t i m e, P arker r ef usedP a rke rw a s c i t e d tw i c e f orvi ol a t i ng the f

i r s tpa r a gr aph of

s e c t i on 1382, a nd 1 onc e — a f t e rthe V A F B C om m a nde ri s s ue d the ba rl e tt e r— f orvi ol a t i ng the s e c ond p a r a g r ap h o f

s e c tio n 1 3 8 2 . T h is d is tin c tio n is irr e le v a n t f o rth e p u rp o s e s o f

th is ap p e a l. 3 t o l e a ve orr e l oc a t e . A f t e rthe f i r s ttw o i nc i de nt s , P a rke rw a s c i t e d tw i c e f or vi ol at i ng se ct i on 13 82 and the V A F B C om m ander i ss ued a “ barm ent ” l ett erthat b a rr e d P a rk e rf

r o m e n te r in g V A F B f

o ra n y r e a s o n f

o rap e r io d o f

th r e e y e a r s . S ever al days l at er , P arker w as ci t ed for the thi rd t i m e. S ect i o n 1 3 8 2 p ro v i d es: W hoe ve r , w i thi n the j ur i s di c t i on of the U ni t e d S t a t e s , goe s upon a ny m i l i t a ry , na va l , orC oa s tG ua r d r e s e rva t i on, pos t , f or t , a r s e na l , y a r d, s t a t i on, ori ns t a l l a t i on, f ora ny purpos e pr ohi bi t e d by l a w orl a w f ul r e gul a t i on; or W h o e v e rr e e n te r s o ris f o u n d w ith in a n y s u c h r e s e rv a tio n , p o s t, f o r t, ar se nal , ya rd, st at i on , or i nst al l at i on , af t erhavi ng been remo ved th e r e f r o m o ro r d e r e d n o t to r e e n te rb y a n y o f f ic e ro rp e r s o n in com m and o r c harge there of-- S h al l b e fi n ed u n d er th i s t i t l e o r i m p ri so n ed n o tm o re th an si x m o n th s, orboth. 18 U . S . C . § 1382. 1 W e h av e i n t erp ret ed sect i o n 1 3 8 2 t o req u i re th e g o v ern m en tt o p ro v e i t s absol ut e ow ners hi p o r e xcl usi ve ri gh tt o the po ss es si on of the prop erty upo n w hi ch th e v io la tio n o c c u rr e d . See U n ite d S ta te s v . V

a s a r a js , 9 0 8 F .2 d 4 4 3 , 4 4 6

– 4 7 ( 9 th4

C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ( th e g o v e rn m e n t m u s t h a v e c o n tr o l, in a d d itio n to “ abs ol ut e ow ne r s hi p, ora n e xc l us i ve r i ghtt o the pos s e s s i on” of the pr ope r ty i n que s t i on, t o pr e s e rve the r ig h t to e x c lu d e o th e r s p u r s u a n t to s e c tio n 1 3 8 2 ) ; U ni te d States v . Mow at , 582 F . 2 d 1 1 9 4 , 1 2 0 6 (9 th C i r. 1 9 7 8 ) (accep t i n g , i n l i g h to f p reced en t , th e p art i es’ s t i pul a t i on tha tthe gove rnm e nt“ w a s r e qui r e d t o pr ove , a s a n e l e m e ntof the o f f e n s e , ab s o lu te o w n e r s h ip o rth e e x c lu s iv e r ig h t to th e p o s s e s s io n o f th e p r o p e r ty u p o n w h ic h th e v io la tio n o c c u rr e d ” ) , ce rt. deni ed , 4 3 9 U .S . 9 6 7 ( 1 9 7 8 ) ; U ni ted S ta tes v. D o u g la ss , 57 9 F . 2d 54 5, 54 7– 48 (9th C i r. 19 78 ) ( ho l di ng that“ [m ] er e t ol e r a t i on of

c e r t a i n us e s by the publ i c de s i gne d f orthe i rc onve ni e nc e doe s not r e s u lt in th e lo s s o f

th e r ig h t to e x c lu s iv e u s e ” a n dth a t th e r e q u is ite “o w n e r s h ip a n d p o s s e s s io n o f

th e a r e ato e n ab le [ th e U n ite d S ta te s ] to e x c lu d e th e ap p e lla n t” h a d b e e n e s tab lis h e d ) ; U n i ted S ta tes v. P a cka rd , 2 3 6 F . S u p p . 5 8 5 , 5 8 6 ( N .D . C a l. 1 9 6 4 ) ( h o ld in g th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t m e t its b u r d e n o f e s tab lis h in g “ab s o lu te o w n e r s h ip , o ra n e x c lu s iv e r ig h t to th e p o s s e s s io n , o f th e r o a d ” ) , af

f’d , 339 F . 2dO u rp o s i t i o n i s c o n s i s t e n tw i th th a to f s e v e r a l o th e rc o u r t s a n d th e U . S. 2 A tto rn e y ’s M a n u a l. See , e . g. , U ni ted Stat es v. A l l en , 92 4 F . 2d 29 , 31 (2d C i r. 1991) (“ [A ] naval re se rvat i on i ncl ud es (1) property ow ned b y the U ni t ed S t at es N a vy a nd ( 2) pr ope r ty ove rw hi c h the U ni t e d S t a t e s N a vy e xe r c i s e s dom i ni on a nd c ontr ol a nd f

r om w hi c h i tm a y e xc l ude the ge ne r a l publ i c . ” ) ( c i t i ng Mow at) ; H oldri dg e v . U

ni ted Stat es , 282 F . 2d 302, 306–08 (8th C i r. 19 60 ) ( ho l di ng that “e x c lu s iv e p o s s e s s io n o f th e p r e m is e s in th e g o v e rn m e n t h a s b e e n ap p r o p r ia te ly e s tab lis h e d ” w h e r e p u b lic u s e o f r o a d s tr a v e r s in g m ilita ry b a s e w a s e x tin g u is h e d in cond em nat i on proceedi ng ); U . S . A tt orney’ s M anual , T i t l e 9, C ri m i nal R es ou rc e M a nua l § 1634 ( 2010) ( c i t i ng H oldr i dge f

orthe pr opos i t i on tha tS e c t i on 1382 “ appl i e s t o a ny m i l i t a ry , na va l , orc oa s tgua r d r e s e rva t i on, pos t , f or t , a r s e na l , y a r d, s ta tio n o rin s ta lla tio n o v e rw h ic h th e U n ite dS ta te s h a s e x c lu s iv e p o s s e s s io n .” ) . B ut s e e U ni te d State s v . Mc C oy , 866 F . 2d 826, 830 n. 4 ( 6th C i r . 1989) ( r e j e c t i ng Mow at a n d h o ld in g th a t “if

p r o c e e d in g s u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 8 2 a r e c o m p a r ab le to tr e s p a s s a c tio n s , c e n tu r ie s o f le g a l h is to ry s u p p o r t th e g o v e rn m e n t’s r e f u s a l to concede thatanythi ng m ore than a po ss es soryi nt er es thad t o b e s ho w n”). 5 88 7 (9th C i r. 19 64 ) ( af

fi rm i ng “ for the re as on s s t at ed i n the op i ni on of the tri al court . ”) . 2 T h e g o v e rn m e n t a c k n o w le d g e s o u rs e c tio n 1 3 8 2 a u th o r ity , b u t c h a lle n g e s its prec edent i al val ue. T he go vernm entar gu es thatthe Mow at part i es st i pu l at ed that s e c tio n 1 3 8 2 r e q u ir e s “ab s o lu te o w n e r s h ip o re x c lu s iv e r ig h t o f p o s s e s s io n ,” Mow at , 582 F . 2d a t1206, a nd c ont e nds tha ts ubs e que ntc a s e s m e r e l y a s s um e d, w ith o u t s q u a r e ly d e c id in g , th e s a m e . T he gove rnm e nti s m i s t a ke n. W hi l e the pa r t i e s i n Mow at i nd ee d st i pu l at ed tha ts e c t i on 1382 r e qui r e s tha tthe gove rnm e ntpr ove “ abs ol ut e ow ne r s hi p or ex cl u si v e ri g h to f p o ssessi o n , ” w e d i d n o tb l i n d l y accep tth atst i p u l at i o n , b u td i d so6

in lig h t o f

N in th a n d E ig h th C ir c u it p r e c e d e n t. Se e id. ( c i t i ng P a cka rd a nd H oldr i dge ). M oreover, atthe sa m e t i m e Mo w a t w a s de c i de d, adi f f e r e ntpa ne l of thi s c our ti nde pe nde nt l y he l d tha ts e c t i on 1382 r e qui r e s ow ne r s hi p ore xc l us i ve r ig h t o f p o s s e s s io n . See D o u g la ss , 579 F . 2d a t547–48 ( c i t i ng P a cka rd , H olm es , a nd W at s on ). S ub se qu entpanel s have a l so hel d so i nd ependent l y of Mow at . See V a s a r a js , 908 F . 2d a t446 ( c i t i ng H olm es a nd W

at s on ). T he go vernm entfurther a rgues thatou r c as es l ef top en the qu es t i on of w hat ki nd of go vernm entcontrol ov eran ar eaw i thi n a m i l i t ary bas e i s i nsuffi ci entfor a s e c tio n 1 3 8 2 p r o s e c u tio n , a s th e y a ll u p h e ld s e c tio n 1 3 8 2 c o n v ic tio n s a n d d id n o t, i n f a c t , i nvol ve a n e a s e m e nt . T he l a c k of a n e a s e m e nt , how e ve r , w a s a n i m por t a nt partof the V

as ar aj s a nd D o u g la ss p a n e ls ’ r a tio n a le in u p h o ld in g th e c o n v ic tio n s . See V a s a r a js , 90 8 F . 2d at44 6– 47 (the go vernm entexer ci se d actual control ov er a r e ai nvol ve d a nd de f

e nda ntdi d nota r gue tha te i the rs he orthe publ i c a tl a r ge be ne f i tt e d f r om a n e a s e m e ntbur de ni ng the por t i on of r oa dw a y a ti s s ue , ortha ts he o r th e p u b l i c atl arg e g ai n ed t i t l e t o th atp o rt i o n o f ro ad w ay th ro u g h ad v erse p o s s e s s io n o ra n im p lie d d e d ic a tio n ) ; D o u g la ss , 579 F . 2d a t547 ( r e j e c t i ng appe l l a nt ’ s a r gum e nttha tthe a r e aa ti s s ue “ w a s notapa r tof the ba s e be c a us e the U n ite d S ta te s d id n o t h a v e th e r e q u is ite o w n e r s h ip a n d p o s s e s s io n o f th e a r e ato e nabl e i tt o e xc l ude the appe l l a nt ” w he r e appe l l a ntha s notc ha l l e nge d the t i t l e of7

th e U n ite d S ta te s to th e a r e a , th e r e w a s n o e a s e m e n t r e s id in g in th e p u b lic w ith re spec tt o thi s a re a, ar i si ng ei ther by gra ntor by re se rvat i on , no r w as there a re l i nq ui shm entof control ov erthe ar eaby the base pers on nel ). I n c o n c lu s io n , o u rc ir c u it’s r e q u ir e m e n t th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t p r o v e ab s o lu te ow ners hi p o r e xcl usi ve ri gh tof po ss es si on do es no tre ston the part i es ’ un veri fi ed s tip u la tio n in o n e is o la te d c a s e , b u t h a s b e e n r e a f f irm e d a n d ap p lie d b y m u ltip le pa ne l s i n l i ghtof

a uthor i ty f

r om thi s a nd othe rc our t s . W e m us tthe r e f or e f ol l ow th is p r e c e d e n t a s th e la w o f th e c ir c u it, th e g o v e rn m e n t’s a r g u m e n ts th a t it is i nc orr e c tori m prude ntnotw i ths t a ndi ng. O nl y the e n ba nc c our tc a n ove r turn a p r io rp a n e l p r e c e d e n t. See Mi randa B . v. Ki t zhab er , 32 8 F . 3d 11 81 , 11 86 (9th C i r. 20 03 ) ( per c uri am ) ( “ [W ] here a panel confront s a n i ss ue germ ane t o the eventual re sol ut i on of the ca se , and res ol ves i taf t erre as on ed consi dera t i on i n a pu bl i shed o p i n i o n , th atru l i n g b eco m es th e l aw o f th e ci rcu i t , reg ard l ess o f w h eth er d o i n g so i s nec es sa ryi n som e s tri ctl og i ca l se nse. ”) (i nt ernal qu ot at i on s om i tt ed); H art v. M a ssa n a ri , 266 F . 3d 1155, 1171 ( 9th C i r . 2001) ( “ O nc e apa ne l r e s ol ve s a n i s s ue i n apr e c e de nt i a l opi ni on, the m a tt e ri s de e m e d r e s ol ve d, unl e s s ove rrul e d by the c our ti t s e l f

s i tt i ng e n ba nc , orby the S upr e m e C our t. . . . [ A ] l a t e rthr e e - j udge panel consi deri ng a c as e thati s c on trol l ed by the rul e a nn ou nced i n an earl i er pa ne l ’ s opi ni on ha s no c hoi c e butt o appl y the e a r l i e r - a dopt e d rul e ; i tm a y nota ny8

m or e di s r e ga r d the e a r l i e rpa ne l ’ s opi ni on tha n i tm a y di s r e ga r d arul i ng of the S up re m e C ou rt . ”) . T he l aw of the ci rc ui trul e, of course , has a n i m po rt antexce pt i on : a panel m a y di s a gr e e w i th the c i r c ui tpr e c e de ntw he n i nt e rve ni ng S upr e m e C our tde c i s i ons h a v e u n d e r c u t th e th e o ry o rr e a s o n in g u n d e r ly in g th e p r io rc ir c u it p r e c e d e n t in s u c h aw a y th a t th e c a s e s a r e c le a r ly irr e c o n c ilab le . Mille rv . G a m m ie , 335 F . 3d 8 8 9 , 9 0 0 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) (en b an c). T h e g o v ern m en tci t es U ni ted Stat es v. A lbe r t i ni , 4 7 2 U .S . 6 7 5 (1 9 8 5 ), w h er e th e S u p re m e C o u rt h eld th at se ctio n 1 3 8 2 ’s bar a gai nstre -e ntryaf

t era def endanthad rece i ved a bar l ett erappl i es du ri ng an o p en h o u se, as “ a p erso n m ay n o tcl ai m i m m u n i ty fro m [th e b ar l ett er’ s] proh i bi t i on on entrym er el y bec ause the m i l i t ary has te m p o r a r ily op ened a m i l i t ary f a c ility to th e p u b lic .” 4 7 2 U .S . a t 6 8 7 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . A lbe r t i nid i d n o tad d ress th e scen ari o w h ere a m i l i t ary b ase o r area thereo f i s perm an ent l y o p e n to th e p u b lic b y v ir tu e o f

ap u b lic e a s e m e n t. A lbe r t i niand the l i ne of N i nth C i rc ui tca se s r e qui r i ng abs ol ut e ow ne r s hi p ore xc l us i ve r i ghtof pos s e s s i on a r e the r e f

or e not irr e c o n c ilab le . C

f . V as ar aj , 9 0 8 F .2 d a t 4 4 7 ( h o ld in g th a t A lb e r tin i s uppor t s the v ie w th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t “m u s t e x e r c is e c o n tr o l o v e rits p r o p e r ty in o r d e rto p r e s e rv e th e r ig h t to e x c lu d e o th e r s f r o m it p u r s u a n t to § 1 3 8 2 ” ) .9

In thi s c as e, the evi dence concl usi vel y s ho w s thatO ce an A venu e had been e s tab lis h e d p u r s u a n t to ap u b lic r o a d e a s e m e n t th a t th e U n ite d S ta te s h a d in itia lly g r a n te d to th e S ta te o f

C a lif o rn ia , w h ic h la te rr e lin q u is h e d it to th e C o u n ty o f S a n ta B a rb a r a . T h e r o a d is s u b je c t to th e c o n c u rr e n t ju r is d ic tio n o f th e C o u n ty o f

S a n ta B a rba r aa nd V A F B , w i th the c ounty e xe r c i s i ng pr i m a ry r e s pons i bi l i ty f orthe e n f o r c e m e n t o f

c r im in a l la w s . In al l three i nci dent s, P arker w as w i thi n the ph ys i ca l l i m i t s of the pu bl i c r oad e a s e m e ntc orr e s pondi ng t o O c e a n A ve nue , af a c tw hi c h the gove rnm e ntdoe s not c ha l l e nge . B e c a us e the gove rnm e ntdoe s notha ve a n e xc l us i ve r i ghtof pos s e s s i on o v er O cean A v en u e, u n d er th i s co u rt ’ s p reced en t , P ark er’ s p resen ce an d p ro t est a c tiv itie s c a n n o t c o n s titu te v io la tio n s o f s e c tio n 1 3 8 2 . T h e j u d g m e n to f

c o n v i c t i o n i s th e r e f

o r e VA C AT E D. R E VE R S E D.