United States v. Ubaldo, No. 14-50093 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction for illegally importing weapons into the United States. The Ninth Circuit held that the presumption against extraterritoriality has been rebutted by the provisions within the weapons importation statute and the legislative history accompanying the statute; the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction; the motion to suppress was properly denied; in regard to the motion to dismiss the indictment, the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant failed to establish bad faith; the district court acted within its discretion when it elected to issue a curative instruction rather than granting a mistrial for the purported violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence regarding defendant's previous smuggling conduct, and any error in admitting the evidence was harmless; the district court adequately instructed the jury regarding the elements of causing the importation of weapons into the United States; and there was no merit to the contention that the district court's willfulness instruction was incomplete or potentially allowed the jury to convict defendants for merely facilitating or brokering deals. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed Cesar Ubaldo’s conviction for illegally importing weapons into the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 922(l), 924(a)(1)(C), and 22 U.S.C. § 2778(b)(2). The panel held that the district court correctly determined that, considering the language and history of the legislation, the weapons importation statutes, §§ 922(l) and 2778(b)(2), apply extraterritorially. Applying the aiding and abetting statute to the defendants’ conduct, the panel held that the district court properly rejected the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict. The panel held that the district court properly denied, after conducting a Franks hearing, Ubaldo’s suppression motion in which he claimed that the search warrant affidavit contained false and misleading statements. Rejecting Ubaldo’s contention that the district court should have dismissed the indictment due to an agent’s failure to preserve text messages, the panel held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Ubaldo failed to establish bad faith. UNITED STATES V. UBALDO 3 The panel held that the district court acted within its discretion when it elected to issue a curative instruction rather than granting a mistrial for a purported violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 16. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence regarding Ubaldo’s previous smuggling conduct, which was relevant to show his “intent, plan, knowledge or absence of mistake”; or in allowing the government to introduce testimony regarding the capabilities, usage, and source of the weapons. The panel held that any error in allowing the weapons introduced into evidence to remain in display in the courtroom was harmless. The panel held that the district court adequately instructed the jury regarding the elements of causing the importation of weapons into the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b); and that there is no merit to the defendants’ contentions that the district court’s willfulness instruction was incomplete, or potentially allowed the jury to convict the defendants for merely facilitating or brokering the deals.
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.