Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barry Lamar BONDS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-22
Citations: 784 F.3d 582
Docket Number: No. 11-10669
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barry Lamar BONDS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: STEPHEN REINHARDT, ALEX KOZINSKI, DIARMUID F. O’SCANNLAIN, SUSAN P. GRABER, KIM MCLANE WARDLAW, WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, N. RANDY SMITH, JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN and MICHELLE T. FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 784
Pages: 582–611

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barry Lamar BONDS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10669.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted En Banc Sept. 18, 2014.
Filed April 22, 2015.
Dennis P. Riordan (argued) and Donald M. Horgan, Riordan & Horgan, San Francisco, CA; Ted Sampsell Jones, William Mitchell College of Law, St. Paul, MN, for Appellant.
Merry Jean Chan (argued), Assistant United States Attorney, Melinda Haag, United States Attorney, Barbara J. Valliere, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate Division, United States Attorneys’ Office, San Francisco, CA, for Appellee.
Before: STEPHEN REINHARDT, ALEX KOZINSKI, DIARMUID F. O’SCANNLAIN, SUSAN P. GRABER, KIM MCLANE WARDLAW, WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, N. RANDY SMITH, JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN and MICHELLE T. FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Per Curiam Opinion; Concurrence by Judge KOZINSKI; Concurrence by Judge N.R. SMITH; Concurrence by Judge
REINHARDT; Concurrence by Judge W. FLETCHER; Dissent by Judge RAWLINSON
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
During a grand jury proceeding, defendant gave a rambling, non-responsive answer to a simple question. Because there is insufficient evidence that Statement C was material, defendant's conviction for obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 is not supported by the record. Whatever section 1503's scope may be in other circumstances, defendant's conviction here must be reversed.
A reversal for insufficient evidence implicates defendant's right under the Double Jeopardy Clause. See United States v. Preston, 751 F.3d 1008, 1028 (9th Cir.2014) (en banc) (citing Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 11, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978)). His conviction and sentence must therefore be vacated, and he may not be tried again on that count.
REVERSED.