United States v. Apel, s. 11–50003

Citation676 F.3d 1202,2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5300
Decision Date25 April 2012
Docket NumberNos. 11–50003,11–50004,11–50005.,s. 11–50003
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. John Dennis APEL, Defendant–Appellant.United States of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. John Dennis Apel, Defendant–Appellant.United States of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. John Dennis Apel, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

André Birotte, Jr., Robert E. Dugdale, and Mark R. Yohalem (argued), United States Attorney's Office, Los Angeles, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee.

Erwin Chemerinsky, Selwyn Chu, law student (argued), and Matthew Plunkett, law student (argued), Appellate Litigation Clinic, University of California Irvine School of Law, Irvine, CA, for the defendant-appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. Nos. 2:10–cr–00830–JFW–1, 2:10–cr–00869–JFW–1, 2:10–cr–00831–JFW–1.Before: BARRY G. SILVERMAN and JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and JOHN R. TUNHEIM, District Judge.*

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant John Apel, who was subject to a pre-existing order barring him from Vandenberg Air Force Base, was convicted of three counts of trespassing on the base in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1382. After his convictions became final in district court, we decided United States v. Parker, 651 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir.2011). Parker held that because a stretch of highway running through Vandenberg AFB is subject to an easement “granted to the State of California, which later relinquished it to the County of Santa Barbara,” the federal government lacks the exclusive right of possession of the area on which the trespass allegedly occurred; therefore, a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1382 cannot stand, regardless of an order barring a defendant from the base. 651 F.3d at 1184.

Although we question the correctness of Parker, it is binding, dispositive of this appeal, and requires that Apel's convictions be REVERSED.

* The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • United States v. Apel
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 26, 2014
    ...the Government to prove that it has "the exclusive right of possession of the area on which the trespass allegedly occurred." 676 F.3d 1202, 1203 (2012) (citing United States v. Parker, 651 F.3d 1180 (C.A.9 2011) ). The court found that the easement through Vandenberg deprived the Governmen......
  • United States v. Apel
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • August 14, 2014
    ...to conform to the attached Amended Opinion.OPINIONPER CURIAM:On February 26, 2014, the United States Supreme Court vacated our opinion at 676 F.3d 1202 and remanded the case to us for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. United States v. Apel, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 1144, 186 ......
  • United States v. Apel
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 3, 2013
    ...STATES, petitioner,v.John Dennis APELSupreme Court of the United States12–1038June 3, 2013. OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Case below, 676 F.3d 1202. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ...
  • United States v. Apel, s. 11–50003
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • August 14, 2014
    ...and JOHN R. TUNHEIM, District Judge.*OPINIONPER CURIAM: On February 26, 2014, the United States Supreme Court vacated our opinion at 676 F.3d 1202 and remanded the case to us for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. United States v. Apel, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 1144, 186 L.Ed.......
1 books & journal articles
  • Another Amazing Year in the Supreme Court
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association California Litigation (CLA) No. 27-1, 2014
    • Invalid date
    ...that has been at the heart of the Court's approach to campaign finance regulation since 1976.In United States v. Apel (9th Cir. 2012) 676 F.3d 1202, cert. granted (2013) 133 S.Ct. 2767, which I argued in December 2013, the Supreme Court will consider whether a federal law, 18 U.S.C. section......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT