884 F.3d 934
9th Cir.2018Background
- Obak, a Palau citizen and 40-year Guam resident, pleaded guilty in District of Guam to two counts of attempted possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine stemming from packages mailed from Washington State to Guam.
- Packages were intercepted by U.S. Postal Inspectors in Washington and replaced with sham product; Obak admitted intent to possess and distribute and arranged local receivers and a customs contact to notify him.
- Obak’s plea agreement waived jury trial and most appeal/collateral-attack rights (except ineffective counsel, involuntariness of plea, or prosecutorial misconduct); district court accepted plea and sentenced him to 192 months.
- Shortly after sentencing Obak moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction/ improper venue, contending Guam is neither a “State” nor a “district” under Article III §2 cl.3 and the Sixth Amendment, so venue should have been Washington.
- The Ninth Circuit treated the claim as a venue issue, addressed subject-matter jurisdiction (upholding it under the Organic Act, 48 U.S.C. §1424), and analyzed constitutional and statutory venue rules, concluding venue in Guam was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Article III §2 cl.3 to Guam | Obak: Article III requires trial in the State where crime committed; Guam is not a State so court lacks jurisdiction | Govt: (and court) Congress did not extend Art. III §2 cl.3 to Guam; Guam’s status differs | Art. III §2 cl.3 does not apply to Guam; claim fails (Pugh precedent) |
| Sixth Amendment venue right | Obak: Sixth Amendment requires trial in State/district where crime committed; Guam is neither so venue improper | Govt: Sixth Amendment was extended to Guam by Congress; Guam is a “district” under statutes and precedent | Sixth Amendment applies but Congress and precedent treat Guam as a district; venue in Guam proper |
| Venue for continuing/offense involving mail | Obak: Venue lies only in Washington where mail originated | Govt: Mail-related offense is continuing; venue proper where begun, continued, or completed, including Guam | 18 U.S.C. §3237(a) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 18 permit venue in Guam (crime began in WA, continued/completed in Guam) |
| Effect of guilty-plea waiver on venue challenge | Obak: Plea-waiver precluded appeal? | Govt: Govt failed to invoke waiver on appeal so waived reliance; nonetheless merits resolved | Plea waived venue objection but government waived invoking that waiver; court addressed and rejected Obak’s merits challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Valdez-Santos, 457 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2006) (standard for reviewing venue in criminal cases)
- United States v. Roberts, 618 F.2d 530 (9th Cir. 1980) (constitutional venue rights can be waived)
- Pugh v. United States, 212 F.2d 761 (9th Cir. 1954) (Article III §2 cl.3 does not apply to Guam absent congressional extension)
- United States v. Santos, 623 F.2d 75 (9th Cir. 1980) (Guam is not "out of the jurisdiction of any particular district"; venue statutes apply)
- United States v. Lee, 472 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2006) (term "district" includes territories with district courts under an act of Congress)
- Guam v. Guerrero, 290 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 2002) (constitutional rights apply in Guam only as extended by Congress)