United States v. Vladimir Handl
693 F. App'x 643
9th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Vladimir Handl was convicted after a bench trial of RICO conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)), RICO substantive violation (§ 1962(c)), money‑laundering conspiracy (§ 1956(h)), money‑laundering (§ 1956(a)(3)(A) & (B)), and conspiracy to distribute controlled substances (21 U.S.C. § 846).
- The convictions arose from an undercover operation in which government agents induced participation in a criminal enterprise; Handl joined and actively engaged in the scheme.
- Handl moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the government’s undercover conduct was "outrageous" and violated due process, warranting dismissal of money‑laundering and narcotics counts.
- The district court denied dismissal; it found Handl was eager to participate, sought to expand the scheme, and had opportunities to withdraw.
- Handl also asked the court to dismiss the indictment under the court’s discretionary supervisory power; the district court refused.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the outrageous‑conduct standard was not met and the district court did not abuse its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether government undercover conduct was "outrageous" such that indictment must be dismissed | Gov: Operation lawful; factors do not show outrageousness | Handl: Undercover operation was so egregious it violated due process and requires dismissal | No — court applied Black factors to operation as a whole, found Handl enthusiastic, standard for dismissal is extremely high, not met |
| Whether outrageousness dismissal as to money‑laundering requires dismissal of narcotics conspiracy | Gov: Same reasoning applies; no outrageousness | Handl: If money‑laundering counts dismissed, narcotics should follow | No — because money‑laundering dismissal denied, narcotics dismissal also denied |
| Whether district court should dismiss indictment under its supervisory/discretionary power | Gov: No alternative basis for dismissal; supervisory power not triggered | Handl: Even absent constitutional outrageousness, court should use supervisory power to dismiss | No — court declined to exercise supervisory power; no compelling reason presented |
| Standard of review for denial of dismissal based on outrageous governmental misconduct | Gov: Appellate review applies de novo to legal question, facts viewed favorably to government | Handl: N/A | Court: Affirmed de novo review for legal ruling; factual findings reviewed for clear error; panel applied precedents accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pedrin, 797 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2015) (standard for dismissal on outrageous‑government‑misconduct is "extremely high")
- United States v. Holler, 411 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2005) (district court findings underlying dismissal reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Larson, 495 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (overruling in part on other grounds referenced)
- United States v. Black, 733 F.3d 294 (9th Cir. 2013) (articulated factors for evaluating outrageous government conduct in undercover operations)
- United States v. Gurolla, 333 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2003) (standard for appellate review of district court’s refusal to dismiss under supervisory power)