United States v. Wells
2:14-cr-00280
D. Nev.Aug 6, 2015Background
- Defendant Dominique Wells was indicted federally for five robberies and related Hobbs Act and firearms offenses after alleged robberies in Southern Nevada in June–July 2014; he pled not guilty.
- Indictment alleges five specific robberies (convenience stores, liquor store, payday/title loan, GameStop) and pleads a nexus to commerce under 18 U.S.C. § 1951.
- Wells moved to dismiss for lack of federal jurisdiction, arguing: no federal involvement in arrest/investigation, state charges were dropped, actions did not affect interstate commerce, prosecution is vindictive, and the Hobbs Act is unconstitutionally vague.
- Government opposed, asserting jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act and that dual sovereignty permits federal prosecution despite state dismissal.
- Magistrate Judge recommended denying the motion: (1) the indictment alleges the required (de minimis) interstate commerce nexus; (2) dual sovereignty permits federal prosecution regardless of state dismissal; (3) the Hobbs Act is not unconstitutionally vague.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Hobbs Act provides federal jurisdiction over these robberies | Government: indictment sufficiently alleges that each robbery affected commerce and a de minimis nexus suffices | Wells: businesses are purely intrastate; robberies did not affect interstate commerce | Denied dismissal; the indictment alleges a de minimis interstate commerce effect and that may be proven at trial |
| Whether federal prosecution is barred because state charges were dismissed | Government: dual sovereignty allows separate federal prosecution | Wells: state dropped charges (allegedly for lack of evidence or to permit federal prosecution) — prosecution is vindictive/malicious | Denied; state dismissal does not bar federal prosecution; inter-sovereign coordination is permissible |
| Whether lack of federal involvement in arrest/investigation defeats jurisdiction | Government: identity of arresting/investigating officers irrelevant to federal prosecutorial authority | Wells: absence of federal agents at arrest shows lack of federal interest/jurisdiction | Denied; federal jurisdiction rests on statutory violation, not which officers effected arrest |
| Whether the Hobbs Act is unconstitutionally vague as applied to petty theft/shoplifting | Government: definition of "commerce" in §1951 is established and not vague; affecting commerce standard is well embedded | Wells: statute is vague and could federalize virtually all thefts | Denied; Hobbs Act not impermissibly vague and gives adequate notice |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sampson, 371 U.S. 75 (court accepts indictment allegations when resolving pretrial jurisdictional motion)
- United States v. Boren, 278 F.3d 911 (court should not resolve facts outside indictment on motion to dismiss)
- United States v. Culbert, 435 U.S. 371 (Hobbs Act reaches matters traditionally within state law)
- United States v. Lynch, 437 F.3d 902 (de minimis interstate commerce effect suffices under Hobbs Act)
- United States v. Atcheson, 94 F.3d 1237 (Ninth Circuit precedent on interstate nexus)
- United States v. Phillips, 577 F.2d 495 (interstate effect may be shown without actual loss)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 360 F.3d 949 (robbery of business can satisfy interstate commerce element)
- United States v. Boyd, 480 F.3d 1178 (temporary business closure can establish de minimis effect on commerce)
- United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (dual sovereignty principle)
- Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (dual sovereignties can prosecute same act)
- United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (state and federal prosecutions not mutually exclusive)
- United States v. Figeroa-Soto, 938 F.2d 1015 (coordination between state and federal prosecutors is permissible)
- Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223 (void-for-vagueness doctrine purpose)
- United States v. Campanale, 528 F.2d 352 (affecting interstate commerce concept is well established)