United States v. Cesar Ubaldo
859 F.3d 690
9th Cir.2017Background
- FBI undercover Agent Ro posed as buyer in the Philippines and purchased/sought high-powered weapons, coordinating shipments to California for onward smuggling to Mexico.
- Defendants Cesar Ubaldo and Sergio Syjuco arranged sales, connected Agent Ro with a Philippine customs contact (Revereza) to bypass customs, helped package/load weapons, and communicated about shipping logistics.
- FBI agents removed firing pins/explosives, placed tracking devices, and caused the container to be transported to the U.S. as part of the sting; the container arrived in California and agents seized the items.
- Indictment charged conspiracy and causing the illegal importation of weapons under 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 922(l), 924(a)(1)(C), 22 U.S.C. § 2778(b)(2), and aiding/abetting (§ 2). Jury convicted Defendants; Ubaldo appealed.
- On appeal Defendants raised multiple claims: extraterritoriality of statutes, insufficiency of evidence (causation), Franks challenge to the email-search warrant, failure to preserve Agent Ro’s outgoing texts, Brady/Rule 16 discovery issues, evidentiary rulings (404(b)/403), and instructional errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extraterritorial reach of § 922(l) and § 2778(b)(2) | Statutes apply abroad to capture foreign-origin importation conduct | Statutes lack clear affirmative indication and thus do not rebut presumption against extraterritoriality | Statutes rebut presumption; apply extraterritorially given language and legislative history (affirmed) |
| Sufficiency of evidence / causation under § 2(b) | Government presented enough proof that Defendants knowingly/willfully caused importation | Defendants argued agents alone imported, so they did not cause or were merely brokers/facilitators; but-for causation lacking | Evidence sufficient: sale, logistics, customs contacts, and knowledge supported willful causation under § 2(b) (affirmed) |
| Franks challenge to email-search warrant | Affidavit contained false/misleading statements about final destination and knowledge; suppression warranted | Government relied on agent testimony; omissions not materially false; warrant supported probable cause | District court credibility finding not clearly erroneous; Franks motion denied (affirmed) |
| Failure to preserve Agent Ro’s outgoing texts / discovery | Deletion of outgoing messages in bad faith warranted dismissal or reversal; withheld report on forged letter violated Rule 16 | Government attempted recovery, no bad faith; court cured withheld material by removing letter and giving curative instruction | No bad faith found; curative instruction adequate; no reversible error (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 136 S. Ct. 2090 (Sup. Ct.) (two-step presumption against extraterritoriality framework)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (Sup. Ct.) (standard for challenging warrant affidavits for intentional falsehoods)
- United States v. Causey, 835 F.2d 1289 (9th Cir.) (§ 2(b) liability for causing an element via an innocent agent)
- Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (Sup. Ct.) (but-for causation principle)
- United States v. Jordan, 927 F.2d 53 (2d Cir.) (defendant liable for importation when an undercover agent completed transport)