United States v. Thomas, Jr., No. 14-10427 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction and sentence for multiple counts of conspiracy and armed bank robbery. He received a total sentence of 49.5 years. Defendant was a bank teller who robbed the banks where he worked and had inside information. The court affirmed the conviction and rejected defendant's claim that there was insufficient evidence to establish that each of the banks was FDIC insured and that the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of defendant's gun ownership. The court concluded that there was no Fourth Amendment violation where defendant voluntarily handed over the cell phone at issue, and the district court utilized Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(b) according to its terms by delaying a ruling on his motion for acquittal until after the close of his case. While the district court had the discretion to impose a lower sentence on the robbery and conspiracy counts, the court concluded that it was not required as a matter of law to reduce defendant's sentence to counter the effects of the mandatory minimums. Therefore, the court concluded that the sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable. The court affirmed the judgment and conviction.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed a conviction and sentence for multiple counts of conspiracy, armed bank robbery, and use of a firearm during a crime of violence. The panel rejected the defendant’s contentions that there was insufficient evidence to establish that each of the banks was FDIC insured and that there was insufficient evidence to show that the defendant knew of and planned for the use of guns during the robberies. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the defendant’s gun ownership, and that there was no Fourth Amendment violation in the seizure and search of the defendant’s cell phone. The panel held that the district court utilized Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(b) according to its terms in delaying a ruling on the defendant’s motion for acquittal until after the close of his case. The panel held that while the district court had discretion to impose a lower sentence on the robbery and conspiracy counts, it was not required as a matter of law to reduce the sentence to counter the effects of the consecutive 32-year mandatory minimum sentence for the two use-of-firearm convictions, and that the 49.5-year total sentence imposed was therefore not substantively unreasonable. UNITED STATES V. THOMAS 3 Dissenting in part, Judge Kozinski wrote that the district judge mistakenly believed he was required to calculate the Guidelines portion of the sentence as if it were a stand-alone sentence, rather than as one component of a combined sentence, which is a major procedural error that requires reversal; and that the sentence is also substantively unreasonable.
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.