USA V. DAVID CAMEZ, No. 14-10251 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 17 2016 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-10251 D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00004-APG-GWF-23 v. DAVID RAY CAMEZ, aka Badman, aka Doctorsex, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted August 10, 2016 San Francisco, California Before: GRABER and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and PETERSON,** District Judge. Defendant David Camez timely appeals his convictions and sentence, following a jury trial, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. We affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Rosanna Malouf Peterson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation. 1. In a separately filed opinion, we reject Defendant’s challenges concerning the fact that he was under the age of 18 when he committed certain acts. 2. Sufficient evidence supports the jury’s finding that Defendant participated "in the operation or management of the enterprise itself." Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170, 185 (1993); see Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (describing the standard for challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence). Defendant was a "member" of the enterprise; he purchased many items from several vendors; he sold some items. He also took many actions that concerned the functioning of the enterprise itself. For example, he left feedback on the quality of many sellers; he reported one seller who allegedly had defrauded him; he posted many comments that helped others undertake scams, in effect directing others on how to carry out the goals of the enterprise more effectively; and he posted an explanation about one of the enterprise’s rules. Defendant’s involvement greatly exceeded the involvement of the defendants in Walter v. Drayson, 538 F.3d 1244, 1248 (9th Cir. 2008), Webster v. Omnitrition International, Inc., 79 F.3d 776, 789 (9th Cir. 1996), and Baumer v. Pachl, 8 F.3d 1341, 1344 (9th Cir. 1993). 3. Because the prosecutor did not misstate the evidence, Defendant’s assertion of prosecutorial misconduct fails. 2 4. Because the far-below-Guidelines sentence was reasonable, the district court did not abuse its discretion in selecting the sentence. AFFIRMED. 3
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.
