United States v. Crooked Arm, No. 15-30277 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseDefendants Crooked Arm and Shane appealed their sentences for conspiring to kill, transport, offer for sale, and sell migratory birds, including bald and golden eagles in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 16 U.S.C. 703(a), 707(b), and 18 U.S.C. 371. Crooked Arm and Shane contended that they admitted only to misdemeanor conduct and cannot be sentenced as felons, an argument they cast as an Apprendi claim. The court explained that while Crooked Arm and Shane challenge their sentences in this appeal, the core of their claim actually appears to be a challenge to their felony convictions— the logical predicate of being sentenced as a felon is conviction of a felony. The court has already resolved any challenge to defendants' felony convictions in Crooked Arm I. Because Crooked Arm I disposes of their arguments, Crooked Arm's and Shane's challenges to their felony sentences fail. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed the district court which, on remand, reimposed felony sentences for the defendants’ convictions for conspiracy “to kill, transport, offer for sale, and sell migratory birds, including bald and golden eagles” in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In an argument they cast as an Apprendi claim, the defendants, who challenged their sentences in this appeal, contended that they admitted during the plea colloquy only to misdemeanor conduct and cannot be sentenced as felons. The panel wrote that the core of the defendants’ claim appears to be a challenge to their felony convictions, and held that the law of the case precludes this court from reconsidering the defendants’ arguments, as this court has already resolved any challenge to their felony convictions in United States v. Vance Crooked Arm, 788 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2015). Dissenting, Judge Nguyen wrote that the defendants’ felony sentences violated Apprendi, and that because the prior UNITED STATES V. CROOKED ARM 3 panel did not decide whether the defendants’ felony sentences were Apprendi error, the law of the case doctrine does not preclude the panel from deciding that issue here.
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.