United States v. Gary Ermoian
752 F.3d 1165
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- CVGIT, a DOJ-funded task force including the FBI, investigated Hells Angels activity in Modesto, including Road Dog Cycle and Holloways.
- A Watered-down Gang Intelligence Bulletin was circulated to local law enforcement to prevent leaks, describing surveillance of the Burn-Out Party and gang activity.
- Ermoian and Johnson were charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice for actions taken after the bulletin’s distribution, including warnings and counter-surveillance.
- Swanson, a deputy sheriff, notified Ermoian of photos from the Burn-Out Party, prompting Ermoian to warn Robert Holloway and cause efforts to dispose of contraband.
- The district court instructed that an FBI investigation could be an official proceeding, and Ermoian/Johnson were convicted of obstructing justice based on that theory.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit concluded that an FBI investigation is not an official proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 1512, reversed the convictions, and remanded for acquittal and resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an FBI investigation qualifies as an official proceeding under § 1512 | Ermoian/Johnson contend FBI investigations are not official proceedings. | Government argues FBI investigations are encompassed by official proceedings. | FBI investigation not an official proceeding; convictions reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ramos, 537 F.3d 439 (5th Cir. 2008) (official proceeding meaning analyzed in context of ‘before a Federal Government agency’)
- Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (U.S. 2005) (requires knowledge actions likely affect a judicial proceeding)
- Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1997) (plain meaning of statutory language in context)
- United States v. Kelley, 36 F.3d 1118 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (assumed congressional purpose not dispositive; analysis lacking)
- United States v. Gonzalez, 922 F.2d 1044 (2d Cir. 1991) (venue concerns for § 1512 interpretations; broader reading questioned)
