United States v. Jereb
Citation | 882 F.3d 1325 |
Decision Date | 27 February 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 16-4127,16-4127 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Aaron Bradley JEREB, Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
Scott Keith Wilson, Assistant Federal Public Defender (Kathryn N. Nester, Federal Public Defender, and Jessica Stengel, Attorney, with him on the briefs), District of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Defendant–Appellant.
Ryan D. Tenney, Assistant United States Attorney (John W. Huber, United States Attorney, with him on the brief), District of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, McHUGH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
Following a jury trial, Aaron Bradley Jereb was convicted of forcibly opposing a federal officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(b), along with three lesser crimes. The trial judge sentenced Mr. Jereb to prison for seventy-two months, to be followed by thirty-six months of supervised release. As a special condition of that release, Mr. Jereb will be required to participate in a mental health treatment program.
Mr. Jereb asks this court to vacate his § 111(b) conviction and remand for a new trial. In the alternative, he asks us to reverse the imposition of mental health treatment and remand for resentencing. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm both the conviction and sentence.
This case arises out of a roadside brawl between Mr. Jereb and Darren Schiedel,1 a law enforcement officer of the United States Forest Service. Officer Schiedel and his K-9 partner, a German Shepherd called Livo, were driving home on October 15, 2015, when they happened upon a red Chevrolet Blazer parked on the side of a remote, narrow road in Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest ("Uinta"). Thinking that unusual given the late hour and lack of nearby recreation opportunities, Officer Schiedel decided to stop, pulling up behind the Blazer. He engaged his truck’s side spotlight, exited, and approached, for the moment leaving Livo behind.
Mr. Jereb was seated in the Blazer’s front passenger seat. His girlfriend at the time, Amber Haanpaa, was in the driver’s seat. That morning, Mr. Jereb and Ms. Haanpaa each took three to five hits of methamphetamine and then drove from their home in Rock Springs, Wyoming, to Salt Lake City, Utah, apparently for the purpose of retrieving Mr. Jereb’s motorcycle from impoundment.2 Those plans soon changed. Upon arriving in Salt Lake City, Ms. Haanpaa purchased $900 worth of heroin, some of which she and Mr. Jereb intermittently smoked in a downtown parking lot for the next 90 minutes or so.3 Eventually, Mr. Jereb and Ms. Haanpaa got something to eat and then spent an hour or two at a music store before setting off for the three-hour trek back to Rock Springs. On the way out of town, they stopped at Uinta’s Lambs Canyon to again use drugs, as was Ms. Haanpaa’s custom on her return trips from Salt Lake. Ms. Haanpaa pulled out a sheet of heroin and started smoking it; she believes Mr. Jereb partook. Next, she crushed some methamphetamine on a mirror and snorted it with a "tooter," or a rolled-up receipt. She handed the tooter to Mr. Jereb, who was about to snort the next line when Officer Schiedel pulled up behind them.
Ms. Haanpaa attempted to hide the drug paraphernalia, but her efforts were to no avail. About two hours later, after investigation and questioning not relevant on appeal, Officer Schiedel wrote drug possession citations for both Mr. Jereb and Ms. Haanpaa. Believing Mr. Jereb was sober enough to drive back to Wyoming, Officer Schiedel told them they were free to go. At trial, Officer Schiedel testified that he "wanted out of there at that point." App. App’x, Vol. III, at 355. Mr. Jereb’s erratic behavior worried him. He was "wild eyed," with "a real direct gaze about him," and "it was getting to the point where I was starting to get a little bit concerned about his demeanor towards me." Id. at 317. When Officer Schiedel attempted to hand him his citation, for instance, Mr. Jereb just stared into Officer Schiedel’s eyes. But the Blazer’s engine would not start, so Ms. Haanpaa asked Officer Schiedel if he would be willing to use his patrol truck to jumpstart it. Not wanting to leave them stranded, Officer Schiedel agreed.
Mr. Jereb exited from the driver’s seat, put on a black leather jacket, and retrieved jumper cables from the back of the Blazer. That concerned Officer Schiedel because the jumper cables "seemed like a pretty good weapon." Id. at 356. He was also concerned that Mr. Jereb may have put on the leather jacket for the purpose of protecting himself in the event of a fight. Nevertheless, they succeeded in jumpstarting the Blazer without incident. Officer Schiedel detached the jumper cables from the battery and started to return to his patrol truck. At trial, he described what happened next:
Id. at 358–60. Officer Schiedel testified that Livo immediately came to his side. Mr. Jereb then "made some comments to the dog, c[a]joling him, kind of trying to get him, drawing him to him, saying what a nice dog he was and tried to get him to come to him." Id. at 362.
At around this time Ms. Haanpaa exited the Blazer, where she had been sitting, and asked Mr. Jereb to return to the Blazer. According to Officer Schiedel, Livo responded by repositioning himself in between Officer Schiedel, Mr. Jereb, and Ms. Haanpaa, bringing him closer to Mr. Jereb than he had been previously. Mr. Jereb then "reached out very quickly and grabbed canine Livo" by his collar, twisting it and causing Livo to scream in pain. Id. at 368, 370–71. From there, Officer Schiedel’s recollection is limited:
Id. at 372. Ms. Haanpaa, on the other hand, gave a somewhat different account.4
Ms. Haanpaa was sitting in the driver’s seat when the Blazer was jumpstarted; she turned the key in the ignition. Once the car was running, she remained in the driver’s seat for a minute or two, waiting for Mr. Jereb, who was still outside. It was late at night and she could not see either man from the driver’s seat, so she exited the vehicle "to go see what was going on and why we were not leaving." Id. at 723. She then testified as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Fleming
...to the jury, it cannot now contend that the instructions did not provide an accurate statement of the law."); United States v. Jereb , 882 F.3d 1325, 1341 (10th Cir. 2018) ("[T]he invited error doctrine applies in cases such as this one, where the defendant requested the jury instruction he......
-
United States v. Williamson
...agreement to the jury instruction and failure to object would barPage 14 him from challenging it on appeal. See United States v. Jereb, 882 F.3d 1325, 1335 (10th Cir. 2018); see also United States v. Cornelius, 696 F.3d 1307, 1319 (10th Cir. 2012) (under invited error doctrine, appellate co......
-
United States v. Wells
...law or fact, a party may not at a later stage use the error to set aside the immediate consequences of the error. United States v. Jereb , 882 F.3d 1325, 1338 (10th Cir. 2018) (quotations, citations, and alteration omitted). Wells's complaint about Instruction No. 12 has nothing to do with ......
-
United States v. Perrault
...when defendants challenge jury instructions on appeal that they proffered in the trial court. See, e.g. , United States v. Jereb , 882 F.3d 1325, 1335–41 (10th Cir. 2018) ; Sturm , 673 F.3d at 1280–81. But this case isn't so straightforward. As we have previously recognized, the invited-err......
-
The Racialized Violence of Police Canine Force
...the requirements necessary for a ‘proper’ bite.” Id . 250. 251. See Meade, supra note 8, at 399; see also United States v. Jereb, 882 F.3d 1325, 1332 (10th Cir. 2018) (quoting a canine officer describing a “full mouth bite” as follows: “[T]he rear of the teeth are engaging the forearm all ......
-
Review Proceedings
...903 F.3d 704, 707-08 (8th Cir. 2018) (same); U.S. v. Vazquez-Hernandez, 849 F.3d 1219, 1224-26 (9th Cir. 2017) (same); U.S. v. Jereb, 882 F.3d 1325, 1335 (10th Cir. 2018) (same); U.S. v. Iriele, 977 F.3d 1155, 1177 (11th Cir. 2020) (same); U.S. v. Cordova, 806 F.3d 1085, 1095 (D.C. Cir. 201......