United States v. Gary Donald Barken

Good Law
412 F.3d 1131·2005 WL 1501496·60 ERC (BNA) 1833·2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 12698
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 27, 200503-50441California3,018 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gibson, J.

Gary Donald Barken appeals his jury trial conviction and sentence for unlawful transportation and disposal of hazardous material without a permit in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 6928 (d)(1) and (d)(2)(A) (codifying the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, (RCRA)). He argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the indictment for pre-indictment delay in violation of his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment and under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(b). He also alleges four sentencing errors. We affirm Barken’s conviction and remand to the district court to consider the sentencing issues in accordance with United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).

FACTS

Barken was indicted on October 28, 2002, with eleven of the twenty-one counts relating to events that took place nearly five years earlier. In 1997, Barken became president of a family-owned business, Barken’s Hard Chrome, located in Compton, California. The company’s business is chrome plating and metal finishing. Beginning in the spring of that year, Barken spoke with Michelle Totten, 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.