Eastern District of California Blog

3-Year Sentence For Woman In Mortgage Fraud Scheme

A Citrus Heights woman has been sentenced to three years in federal prison for her role in a mortgage fraud scheme.

Following a four-day jury trial in December, Dianna Woods, 60, was convicted of four counts of making false statements on loan applications, according to a U.S. attorney’s office news release. She was sentenced Monday in Sacramento by Senior U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb.

Sac Bee, 3/27/17

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article141102498.html#storylink=cpy

 

EDCA Court Rejects Right-To-Work Lawsuit

A federal judge on Wednesday rejected a right-to-work lawsuit that sought to upend the way state government’s largest union collects dues from employees who do not want to fund political activities.

Judge William Shubb’s decision allows SEIU Local 1000 to continue registering employees with an “opt-out” format that requires them to explicitly withdraw from the union’s political campaigns if they oppose it.

Sac Bee, 2/8/17

EDCA Court Dismisses 924(c) Gun Counts Based On Supreme Court's ACCA "Residual Clause" Decision in Johnson

[Amended/Updated 2/20/16]:  In this United States v. Lattanaphom, No. 2:99-0433-WBS Memorandum and Order, Judge Shubb today  granted the defendants' motion to dismiss several 924(c) gun counts based on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015).  Johnson held that the portion of the definition of crime of violence in the Armed Career Criminal Act's residual clause is void as unconstitutionally vague.  

Judge Shubb applies the Johnson decision to the more common gun charge, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).  He reasons that while the Ninth Circuit has not yet decided whether Johnson applies to the definition of "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the result is compelled by its recent decision in Dimaya v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2015).  There, applying Johnson, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Board of Immigration's decision that a conviction for burglary was categorically a "crime of violence" under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F), which in turn defines crime of violence by reference to 18 U.S.C. § 16--using identical language to that in the § 924(c) residual clause.  Judge Shubb also notes that N.D. Cal. Judge Orrick ruled the same way last week.  United States v. Bell, No. 15-CR-00258 WHO, 2016 WL 344749, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2016).

On February 19, 2016, the Court slightly amended its original decision in denying the government's motion for reconsideration here.  

Finally, it worth mentioning that the issue won't help those facing 924(c) sentences in connection with drug trafficking offenses and will only affect some, not all, crimes of violence.  

Jury Awards $534,340 in Sacramento County Police Shooting Case

A federal court jury awarded a man $534,340 Friday on his excessive force claim that he was shot without warning by a Sacramento County sheriff’s deputy when he opened his front door in response to deputies banging on it.

Sac Bee, 11/6/15.  Plaintiff's attorney Stewart Katz is starting another civil rights action involving a police shooting next Tuesday in Judge Shubb's courtroom in Hesselbein v. City of Elk Grove, et. al., No. 2:11-CV-2157-WBS.

Seven Years Cut From Federal Sentence In Settlement After Denial of Public Trial

A man serving a 15-year prison sentence for conspiring to burn down his North Natomas restaurant had his convictions thrown out earlier this month on a rare argument: His trial was not actually public.

Sundeep Dharni, now 42, walked free because spectators, including some members of his family, were briefly excluded from the courtroom during at least part of jury selection to make room for an unusually large pool of prospective jurors.

* * *

n July 2014, a split three-judge circuit panel sent the case back to Sacramento for additions to be made to the record reflecting the scope of the courtroom closure, and for the lower court to decide “whether spectators had an opportunity to re-enter the courtroom during (jury selection), including whether seats in fact opened up and, if so, whether spectators would have been aware of the vacancies, and whether the district court and court officials would have allowed the spectators to enter” while jury selection was underway.

The parties agreed it would be next to impossible to come up with precise answers to the circuit’s questions about 7 1/2 -year-old events. Instead, in January Denvir and the prosecutor asked the circuit to let them find out whether the court in Sacramento would grant a motion by the government to dismiss Dharni’s convictions, conditioned upon Dharni’s acceptance of a plea agreement and a re-sentence to time served.

The circuit granted the request [here], which was signed for the government by Assistant U.S. Attorney Audrey Hemesath. 

“I’m gratified that the government would consider such a reasonable solution,” Denvir said in an interview. “Ms. Hemesath was a pleasure to work with. She listens to what you have to say and takes it seriously.”

Sac Bee, 10/31/15

Prison Sentences for Defendants Convicted of Mortgage Fraud After Jury Trial

In United States v. Kuzmenko, et. al, No. 2:11-CR-240-JAM, Judge Mendez today sentenced four defendants to prison who were convicted of various counts involving mortgage fraud in a jury trial in February:  Peter Kuzmenko, 19 years imprisonment; Aaron New, 11 years, 3 months; Nadia Kuzmenko, 8 years; and Edward Shevtsov, 8 years.  

In United States v. Rotteveel, No. 2:11-CR-447-WBS, Judge Shubb sentenced the defendant today to 40 months imprisonment after he was convicted by a jury in August 2014 of one count of mail fraud relating to 13 properties in Dixon.  

I'm Back!

By popular demand, I'm back from my extended absence.  (Well, at least a couple of you had inquired if I had quit the blog).  I had intended to take a week or so off but it somehow turned into six weeks.  I won't even try to catch you all up on all the EDCA news, but I will post some highlights of the last few weeks. 

Let's start with two Ninth Circuit opinions affirming Judge Shubb's rulings in criminal actions.  First, in U.S. v. Katakis, No. 14-10283 (9th Cir. Aug 31, 2015), the Ninth Circuit affirmed Judge Shubb's grant of a Rule 29 acquittal on an obstruction of justice count.  See my earlier post here.  The defendant still faces sentencing on other counts.

In U.S. v. Navarro, No. 15-10245 (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 2015), the Court held that a district court could not apply the "Drug Minus 2" retroactive guideline amendment to reduce a sentence to a release date before the 11/1/15 effective date of the amendment.

 

CHP Ticket Quota Case Jury Trial

Here's the start of Monday's Sac Bee story on the CHP ticket quota case in trial now before Judge Shubb:

For years, the California Highway Patrol has consistently denied that its officers are subject to a quota for the number of traffic tickets they write each month.

The practice is illegal under state law, and agencies that have been found to use a quota system have paid millions of dollars in damages and faced lawsuits filed as recently as April. 

Despite that, a veteran CHP officer testified in Sacramento this month that he was subjected to monthly admonishments from his superiors to boost his “enforcement contacts” with motorists to at least 100 a month, and that such performance evaluations went on for years.

The testimony by CHP motorcycle Officer Jay Brame, who is being sued along with another officer and the CHP in a case now playing out in federal court in Sacramento, was bolstered by the introduction of performance reviews urging him to pull over more motorists.

“You have averaged five enforcement contacts per day for the first 15 days of the month, this is well below the shift average and not acceptable for a (motorcycle),” one evaluation introduced as evidence stated. “You will need to pick up your enforcement activity the second half of the month and use the (motorcycle) for what it is intended to be used for.”

The direct language in the documents surprised even the judge presiding at the trial. 

“That is terrible,” U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb said. “I would think that the CHP should be ashamed of that document.”

 

EDCA Court Denies Moonlight Fire Fraud-On-The-Court Motion

In this 63-page Order, Judge Shubb denied the defendants' motion to reopen the Moonlight Fire settlement based on alleged fraud on the court. [added: Sac Bee, 4/17/15].  Here's the court's conclusion:

Defendants made a calculated decision to settle this case almost two years ago, and a final judgment was entered pursuant to their agreement.  To set that judgment aside, the law requires a showing of fraud on the court, not an imperfect investigation.  Defendants have failed to identify even a single instance of fraud on the court, certainly none on the part of any attorney for the government.  They repeatedly argue that fraud on the court can be found by considering the totality of the allegations.  Here, the whole can be no greater than the sum of its parts.  Stripped of its bluster, defendants' motion is wholly devoid of any substance.

 

EDCA Court Rules Unlawful Arrest Claims Against CHP May Proceed to Trial

A jury will decide whether California Highway Patrol officers manhandled a 76-year-old man who suffered from slurred speech and balancing problems due to a stroke, a federal judge ruled.

Harrison Orr sued California, its Highway Patrol, and two CHP officers identified only by their last names - Brame and Plumb - alleging that his arrest violated state and federal law.

The officers claimed they thought Orr was under the influence of drugs.

Because there is a dispute as to whether Orr informed the officers in a non-threatening manner of his disability and inability to comply with their instructions, neither side is entitled to summary judgment, U.S. District Judge William Shubb ruled on Feb. 26.

Courthouse News, 3/4/15