United States v. Steven Thomas
669 F. App'x 893
9th Cir.2016Background
- Defendant Steven Asir Thomas convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana; money laundering; and conspiracy to possess firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking.
- Government agents (including Armstrong and Agent Hunt) provided money and organized drug and money‑laundering transactions; Thomas accepted funds and participated in transactions.
- Evidence showed Thomas engaged in kilogram‑level cocaine deals before any government involvement and purchased a handgun to aid cartel contacts; he said he opened a nightclub to "take care of [his] other activities."
- Thomas claimed entrapment at trial (induced by promises of nightclub investments and low‑risk funds) and argued sentencing entrapment (government induced a greater‑quantity offense).
- The jury found Thomas guilty; district court rejected sentencing entrapment (though did not expressly address it on the record); Thomas appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial entrapment occurred | Thomas: government induced crimes by promising nightclub investments and giving low‑risk large sums; feared Agent Hunt due to debt | Government: monetary reward and prior willingness to transact show lack of inducement; Hunt never threatened; Thomas laundered and dealt before debt | No entrapment; reasonable jury could find Thomas predisposed and not induced |
| Whether Thomas lacked predisposition | Thomas: was reluctant to engage in kilogram‑level deals, possess firearms, launder through nightclub | Government: evidence of prior kilogram deals, firearm purchase to aid cartel, statements about nightclub purpose show predisposition | Predisposition proven beyond reasonable doubt; conviction stands |
| Whether sentencing entrapment applies | Thomas: government induced him to commit a more severe, larger‑quantity offense | Government: no evidence Thomas lacked intent or capability for quantity; Thomas did not present supporting evidence | District court’s rejection affirmed; no abuse of discretion (argument waived in part) |
| Whether district court erred procedurally by not addressing sentencing‑entrapment on record | Thomas: trial court failed to rule on sentencing entrapment, which is procedural error | Government: Thomas waived complaint about that omission on appeal | Any procedural error waived by Thomas; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 231 F.3d 508 (9th Cir.) (defines two‑part entrapment test)
- United States v. Spentz, 653 F.3d 815 (9th Cir.) (monetary reward alone does not establish inducement)
- United States v. Mejia, 559 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir.) (defines sentencing entrapment standard)
- United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. en banc) (procedural requirement to address arguments on record)
- United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. en banc) (standard for reviewing whether factual findings are illogical or without support)
- United States v. Cortes, 757 F.3d 850 (9th Cir.) (jury instruction considerations for sentencing entrapment)