United States v. Mobley, No. 13-10561 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseDefendant and his two cousins were convicted of various crimes arising out of their attempt to rob a federal officer, who was posing as a buyer of illegal firearms. The court rejected defendant's contention that no reasonable jury could have rejected his claim of self-defense with respect to the assault charge under 18 U.S.C. 111(b) where the evidence does not support defendant's version of events so decisively that a rational jury would have been compelled to believe him; there was sufficient evidence to support the robbery conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2114(a) where the agent actually had the buy money in his charge, control, or custody; there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. 371 where the jury could reasonably have concluded that the scope of the conspirators’ agreement was not limited to assaulting and robbing an acquaintance; and the court concluded that defendant did not need to know that the buy money the agent had in his custody belonged to the United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed convictions for assault on a federal officer, 18 U.S.C. § 111(b); robbery of mail, money, or other property belonging to the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 2114(a); conspiring to commit those offenses, 18 U.S.C. § 371; and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), in a case in which the defendant and two cousins attempted to rob an ATF special agent who was posing as a buyer of illegal firearms. The panel rejected the defendant’s contention that no reasonable jury could have rejected his claim of self-defense with respect to the assault charge. The panel rejected the defendant’s contention that the government did not introduce sufficient proof that the agent actually had the money in his “charge, control, or custody” at the time the defendant assaulted him. The panel rejected the defendant’s contention that the evidence does not support his conviction under § 371, which makes it unlawful “to commit any offense against the United States.” The defendant argued that the evidence established, at most, only that he conspired to assault a person who was not a federal officer and did not have custody of any money or other property belonging to the United States. The panel held that a rational jury could have inferred that the defendant UNITED STATES V. MOBLEY 3 and his cousins conspired to assault and rob not just the ATF agent, but anyone who accompanied him to the transactions as well. The panel also held that to be guilty of conspiring to assault a federal officer, the defendant did not need to know the ATF agent’s official status, and did not need to know that the money the agent had in his custody belonged to the United States.
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.