Godfrey

United States v. Godfrey

Good Law
112 F. Supp. 3d 1097·2015 WL 3541337·2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72623
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 4, 2015No. 2:14-cr-00323 JAMCalifornia4,939 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Mendez, J.

ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART AND REVERSING IN PART DEFENDANT’S CONVICTIONS

This matter is before the Court, on Defendant John Godfrey’s, (“Defendant”) appeal from his conviction on three counts following a trial before Magistrate Judge Kendall Newman (Doc. # 36). With leave of the Court, The New 49’ers. Legal Fund (“Amicus”) filed an amicus curiae brief (Doc. # 38). Oral argument was held before the Court on June 2, 2015. For the following reasons, Defendant’s conviction is affirmed..in part, and reversed in part.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This case arises from Defendant’s gold mining operation on the Lucky Bob , Mining Claim in the Tahoe National Forest. Doc. # 32, Reporter’s Transcript, Day 1 (“RT1”) at 1-224. The Lucky Bob claim is a placer claim, which means ¡that gold was found within gravels or sedimentary -deposits, rather -than in hard rock or quartz. RT1 at 1-42. Because the Lucky Bob claim is unpatented, the United States Forest Service retains-jurisdiction to manage the non-mineral surface resources on the land. RT1 at 1-42. During the relevant time period, Defendant had received permission from the holder of the Lucky Bob claim to mine the claim. RT1 at 1-224.…

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.