United States v. Juvenile Male

Good Law
118 F.3d 1344·97 Daily Journal DAR 8761·1997 WL 371011·1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 16783·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5400
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 8, 1997Nos. 96-10473, 96-10474, 96-10477California3,498 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Trott, J.

OVERVIEW

Three juvenile defendants—R.B., N.P., and M.A.C. (collectively, “Defendants”)—appeal the district court’s orders transferring them for prosecution as adults on charges of conspiracy to participate in a racketeering enterprise, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (d). 1 Defendants contend that the district court erred in concluding that the Government need only show that their acts had a “de minimis” effect on interstate commerce in order for the court to have jurisdiction in a RICO prosecution. In addition, juvenile N.P. argues that the RICO conspiracy count is not a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 5032 -a necessary predicate to transferring a juvenile for adult prosecution. Lastly, juvenile M.A.C. argues that the district court erred in transferring M.A.C., an Indian, for adult prosecution because the indictment did not allege one of the thirteen offenses listed in the Indian Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153 . We find no *1346 error in the district court’s transfer orders, and we affirm.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the testimony of Detective Karl Auerbach of the Salt River…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.