United States v. Temkin, No. 12-50103 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Defendant appealed his conviction for solicitation to commit a crime of violence; attempted
extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951; and use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of all three counts; the district court properly rejected defendant's entrapment defense where the district court correctly found predisposition; but the district court materially erred by using an offense level of 32, rather than 37, to calculate defendant’s sentencing range under the Guidelines. Under either Count 1 or Count 3, defendant’s offense level should have been set by U.S.S.G. 2A1.5. The offense level for solicitation to commit murder under U.S.S.G. 2A1.5 is 37 - 33, with a 4-level increase for the “offer or the receipt of anything of pecuniary value for undertaking the murder.” Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence, remanding for resentencing.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed convictions for solicitation to commit a crime of violence, attempted extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act, and use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire; vacated the sentence; and remanded for resentencing. The panel held that sufficient evidence supported the defendant’s convictions and the district court’s rejection of the entrapment defense. On the government’s cross-appeal, the panel held that in applying the Sentencing Guidelines to the defendant’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1958 for use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire, the district court erred by using the base offense level of 32 set forth in U.S.S.G. § 2E1.4(a)(1) rather than the cross- UNITED STATES V. TEMKIN 3 referencing provision in U.S.S.G. § 2E1.4(a)(2), where the unlawful conduct underlying that conviction was solicitation to commit murder, which, under U.S.S.G. § 2A1.5, yields an offense level (33) that is greater than 32. With a 4-level increase for the “offer or receipt of anything of pecuniary value for undertaking the murder,” U.S.S.G. §§ 2A1.5(a), (b)(1), the panel concluded that the defendant’s offense level was 37, and that the district court therefore erred in using an offense level of 32 to calculate the defendant’s Guidelines range. The panel held that this error was not harmless.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.