United States v. Brian Edward Ratigan

Good Law
351 F.3d 957·2003 WL 22917744·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10668·2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 24886
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 11, 200301-35972California3,651 words

Opinion

Opinion

Trott, J.

Brian Edward Ratigan (“Ratigan”) appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and sentence for, inter alia, the armed robbery of the U.S. Bank in Spokane, Washington on July 12,1996 and the use and carrying of a firearm during and in relation to the bank robbery.

Ratigan contends that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions for the bank robbery and weapons charge because the government failed to prove the jurisdictional element of the bank’s FDIC insurance at the time of the robbery. Ra-tigan failed to raise this claim at trial or on direct appeal. Consequently, his claim would normally be subject to procedural default, which would bar Ratigan from relief unless he could show cause and prejudice or actual innocence. Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 622 , 118 S.Ct. 1604 , 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998). Ratigan argues, however, that the government’s failure to prove the crime’s jurisdictional element deprived the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction, and that challenges to a judgment that are based on subject-matter jurisdiction are not barred by procedural default. We reject this argument because we conclude that the…

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.