United States v. Major, 676 F.3d 803

Major and Huff were convicted on multiple counts for robberies and firearm offenses in a consolidated trial in the Ninth Circuit case Nos. 10-10147, 10-10148.
The offenses occurred between December 24, 2005 and July 24, 2006 in Fresno and Madera, California, including a Bulldog Liquor robbery where they were apprehended fleeing the scene.
Defendants were convicted on charges under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951, 924(o), and multiple § 924(c) counts; Huff received concurrent and consecutive terms totaling 745 years plus some additional years; Major received a similar aggregate term.
The district court sentenced them on March 25, 2010; the Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions but vacated and remanded for resentencing due to § 924(c) ordering issues.
Major and Huff challenged evidentiary rulings admitting uncharged crimes and gang-affiliation evidence, the no-contact trial restriction, and the § 924(c) scheme, but the court upheld most evidentiary rulings while addressing sentencing issues.
The court ultimately held that the convictions were valid, but the sentences must be resentenced to address how § 924(c) convictions are ordered and applied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of other-crimes and gang evidence	Government contends 404(b) and 403 balance support identity and motive.	Defendants argue 404(b) and 403 balance and 402 protections were abused; jury prejudice.	No reversible abuse; evidence admissible to prove identity and motive with proper balancing.
No-contact order and right to prepare for trial	Restriction was necessary for juror safety and does not impair preparation.	Restriction could impede preparation; should be lifted, especially for holiday visits.	No reversible error; insufficient showing that preparation was actually impeded.
Constitutionality of § 924(c) (separation of powers and Eighth Amendment challenges)	Statute imposes broad penalties; compliant with separation of powers; prior precedents uphold.	Challenges arguing executive charging discretion and disproportionate sentences; potential Eighth Amendment concerns.	§ 924(c) constitutional; no separation-of-powers or Eighth Amendment violation recognized.
Order of convictions under § 924(c) and sentencing	Order determined by indictment/jury verdict; governs minimum sentence.	No clear rule; potential to minimize sentence via ordering; lenity should apply.	Ambiguous statute; apply rule of lenity to minimize mandatory minimum; one brandishing count must be first conviction.

United States v. Edwards, 235 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2000) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings under Rule 404(b)/403)
Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 565 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2009) (de novo review for constitutional questions)
Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) (standard for admissibility of similar acts for identity/intent)
United States v. Curtin, 489 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rule 403/404(b) balancing and admissibility; en banc discussion)
Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129 (1993) (controls ordering of convictions under § 924(c) in same indictment)
Harrison v. Gillespie, 640 F.3d 888 (9th Cir. 2011) (timing of verdicts; deliberations and conviction findings)
United States v. Hayes, 555 U.S. 415 (2009) (rule-of-lenity applied to ambiguous criminal statutes)
United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 (1994) (ambiguity in 'conviction' term under § 924(c))
Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2011 (2010) (juvenile life without parole; not altering prior precedents on § 924(c))
United States v. Harris, 154 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 1998) (upholding 95-year sentence under § 924(c))
United States v. Parker, 241 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2001) (precedent on lengthy § 924(c) sentences)
United States v. Hungerford, 465 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2006) (continued validation of § 924(c) sentences)
Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc standards for following circuit precedent)