United States v. Walter T. Best

While this appeal arises from a simple conviction for drunk driving, it raises important issues involving the interpretation of the Assimilative Crimes Act, the formulation of federal common law, and the limits upon federal authority over the states imposed by the Constitution.

Appellant Best pleaded guilty to driving a vehicle on McClellan Air Force Base (a federal enclave in the State of California) while under the influence of alcohol, in violation of California Vehicle Code § 23102(a), a statute incorporated into federal law by 18 U.S.C. § 13 , the Assimilative Crimes Act. The United States Magistrate for the Eastern District of California sentenced Best to serve ten days in jail and to pay a fine of $350 pursuant to Cal.Veh. Code § 23102(c). 1 The magistrate further ordered that appellant’s driver’s license be suspended for six months pursuant to Cal. Veh.Code § 13201.5(a). 2 Best moved to correct the sentence under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 on the ground that the magistrate lacked the power to suspend his driver’s license. The motion was denied, and the district court affirmed that denial. We reverse and remand.

*1098 Appellant does not dispute the sentence of ten days or the…

concurring and dissenting:

I concur in the majority’s construction of the Assimilative Crimes Act; however, could I act alone, I would hold that the appeal is moot. This, I would do despite the position that the parties take on the issue of mootness. See DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 315 , 94 S.Ct. 1704 , 40 L.Ed.2d 164 (1974). It is quite understandable that they desire a definitive holding and have thus agreed that the appeal is not moot. My disagreement with them, as well as with my Brothers, is founded upon my interpretation of the controlling authorities. See Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 , 96 S.Ct. 347 , 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975) (in absence of a class action, to avoid mootness under the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” doctrine, the particular litigant must demonstrate a reasonable possibility of repetition as to him personally; possibility of repetition as to others is irrelevant); Board of School Comm’rs v. Jacobs, 420 U.S. 128, 129 , 95 S.Ct. 848 , 43 L.Ed.2d 74 (1975); Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 , 110-11 n.11, 95 S.Ct. 854 (1975); Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 399 , 95 S.Ct. 553 , 42 L.Ed.2d 532 (1975); DeFunis v. Odegaard, supra, 416 U.S. at…

573 F.2d 1095 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter T. BEST, Defendant-Appellant. No. 77-2836. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. March 31, 1978. Robert M. Holley, Sacramento, Cal., for defendant-appellant. Harry Hull, Asst. U.S. Atty., Sacramento, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Before ELY, WRIGHT and CHOY, Circuit Judges. CHOY, Circuit Judge: 1 While this appeal arises from a simple conviction for drunk driving, it raises important issues involving the interpretation of the Assimilative Crimes Act, the formulation of federal common law, and the limits upon federal authority over the states imposed by the Constitution. 2 Appellant Best pleaded guilty to driving a vehicle on McClellan Air Force Base (a federal enclave in the State of California) while under the influence of alcohol, in violation of California Vehicle Code § 23102(a), a statute incorporated into federal law by 18 U.S.C. § 13 , the Assimilative Crimes Act. The United States Magistrate for the Eastern District of California sentenced Best to serve ten days in jail and to pay a fine of $350…