*1 tively question few cases have raised the of court authority clerk had to enter a default qualifies 55(b)(1). what as a ‘sum for the judgment under Rule certain’ We there- 55(b)”). Rule purposes Noting pau- this fore vacate our stay of enforcement of the law, city of federal case the First Circuit judgment default and affirm the district KPS & Assocs. looked state courts court. procedure
whose rules of mirror the Fed- AFFIRMED. eral Rules. This led the court to conclude that a claim not a sum certain unless no
doubt remains as to the amount to which a
plaintiff is entitled as result of the defen-
dant’s default. Id. at 19. The First Cir- ultimately
cuit concluded that particu-
lar claim before it was not a certain sum complaint supporting
because the affi- davits, inconsistent, which internally were America, UNITED STATES of did not set forth a claim capable simple Plaintiff-Appellee, mathematical computation, Id. at 20.5
Applying the First approach Circuit’s case, the facts of this we conclude that no BUCHER, Gabriel Defendant- doubt remained as to the amount to which Appellant.
HRG’s default entitled Holding. Franchise No. 03-10197. Holding presented Franchise the clerk with loan documents that set forth the Appeals, States Court of specific formulas for determining the Ninth Circuit. amount owed. It provided also documents Argued 6,May setting forth the various Submitted 2004. amounts neces- sary calculating for the total amount due. July Filed accuracy While HRG takes issue with the figures, some of these gave never any specifics district court about how these
figures wrong or how its own calcula-
tion would differ from Holding’s Franchise
calculation. simply argued HRG its de- suit,
fenses to underlying defenses' on
which it already defaulted.
Accordingly, we conclude that the dis-
trict court clerk calculated a sum certain.
Conclusion
The district court did not abuse its dis- 55(c) by denying
cretion Rule HRG’s
60(b) Furthermore, motion. the district Assocs., liquidated
5. The damages. First Circuit mentioned dam- calculate KPS & ages, agreement where law or an ultimately between the at 20. The court concluded that owed, parties example fixes the amount as an the claim before it-failed this standard as well. hearing of when court need hold a Id. at 21. *2 Silvert, Assistant Fed- Alexander First Wolff, Jr., Defender, and Peter C. eral Defender, of Ha- District Federal Public Honolulu, HI, defendant-ap- waii, for the pellant. Braceo, Attor- Assistant U.S.
Louis A. Jr., Kubo, ney, Edward H. and Hawaii, Hono- Attorney, District States lulu, HI, plaintiff-appellee. for the FARRIS, NOONAN, and Before: RAWLINSON, Judges. Circuit FARRIS, Judge: Circuit A officer comes to a mother’s police her son. He isn’t there. home arrest police the son that want She later notifies guilty him. she be to arrest Should possibly loving than a son anything other may not deserve it? What about warns other motorists motorist who trap”? entering police “speed are extremely high if rea- price prove will human conduct criminal. sonable becomes However, the line between reasonable con- with the duct and conduct interferes official conduct must be performance of drawn. that he failed recognizes
Gabriel ranger’s command obey park a national trail a National Park and he leave conduct un- that a made such vigorously contends that he lawful. He rangers nothing did to “interfere” with duties, in the of their and exercise violating 36 wrongly charged with 2.32(a)(l)(2000). confusion His C.F.R. understandable, misplaced. By but also ,to walking the trail warn a down want to warn Mr. [Bucher] Jacobs of what arrest, whom the intended to we intended for him so that it would did interfere with both the prolong the investigation with go- him their official duties. ing back into the crater us following *3 him.” argues
Bucher there is no direct he spoke of what said when he later, About five minutes Boxx noticed therefore, the cannot be that Bucher had left the parking' lot and assumed that he the person warned of the binoculars, returned to the trail. Through This, reasons, rangers’ intent. pre- he watched Bucher walk down the trail cludes a finding he interfered. Buch- and huddle with quarter Jacobs about a argument ignores er’s truth the of fact this, mile from the trail Seeing head. the finding and reasonable inferences —facts rangers decided to intercept on Jacobs from province those facts are the of the they trail. As approached Jacobs and trier of fact. What he said can be Bucher, suddenly fell listener, known to the nothing pre- but ground, slipping apparent into an uncon- a ranger cludes or a finder of fact from scious rangers state. The attended to Ja- drawing reasonable inferences from what cobs the scene and called for an ambu- was observed. lance. After evacuating Jacobs from the park, rangers concluded that he had BACKGROUND unconsciousness, feigned apparently to 26, 2001, night April of rangers avoid arrest. patrolling the Haleakala National Park role, For his Bucher charged with staying met 14 hikers at a cabin on a trail intentionally interfering with a govern- about five miles from the nearest road. employee ment agent engaged or in an they persons When noticed with several 2.32(a)(1) duty § official under 36 C.F.R. marijuana, cited those who did (2000), a misdemeanor. After a bench tri- relinquish contraband, their then left al, a magistrate judge found guilty group complete its trip. $35; him and fined appealed evening, Ranger That Michael Boxx dis- court, the district which affirmed his'con- cited, covered that one of the hikers 79- ' appealed. viction. He We affirm. Jacobs, year-old given Robert a false group’s plan name. Aware of the to com- DISCUSSION plete day, its hike the next Boxx and other 2.32(a)(1). § Scope 36 C.F'R. rangers went to the trail head parking lot in the morning to wait for Jacobs to arrive Bucher first contends the district so could him. arrest court erred in ruling that the staking
While out charged under which he was applied to his head, hikers, trail (cid:127) one of the Gabriel Buch- conduct. A interpretation district court’s er, emerged from the trail. Boxx in- of a regulation is reviewed de novo. Unit why they formed Bucher were there and Willfong, ed States v.
asked where Jacobs was. Bucher indicat- (9th Cir.2001). ed that he was 15 to 20 minutes behind C.F.R., Section 2.32 of Title 36 him on the trail. Boxx told Bucher he was “Interfering Agency entitled with Func leave, free to but him instructed not to tions,” provides part: relevant return to the trail. Boxx later testified (a) gave this order because he following prohibited: “did not are “affairs,” interfering with thus
(1)
employee’s
Threatening,
resist-
Interference.
Similarly, one
employee
herself.
intentionally inter-
or
intimidating,
ing,
employee
government
with a
interferes
employee
fering with
duty has
engaged in an official
duty, or on who is
agent engaged
official
necessarily compromised
performance
an official
performance
account of
language,
By
plain
duties.
its
of those
duty.
2.32(a)(1)
with
§
criminalizes interference
added.)
quiver
Armed with
(Emphasis
employees and their duties.
rules, Bucher ar-
statutory construction
2.32(a)(1)
apply
occupy
to him
employee
did not
That
and his duties
gues
*4
in
park
interfere with the
coin is reflected
two sides of the same
he did
because
themselves,
indirectly
regu-
purpose.
but
the
regulation’s
the
When
1983,
by disobeying
duties”
in
the
their “official
lation
enacted
National
with
2.32(a)
§
that
the
“is
argues
He
stressed that
the order to leave.
Park Service
regulation
oper-
limits its
necessary
government
of the
to
that
plain language
ensure
directly interfere
to acts that
interference.” 48
application
proceed
ations
without
(June
(em-
30,1983)
[personally],
30252,
employee
30270
government
Fed.Reg.
“with a
added).
employee
rejected
is
more
duty
Although
the
the
it
phasis
not with
reading
proposed,
out.” Bucher’s
that were
carrying
sweeping prohibitions
2.32(a)(1)
commented,
prohibi-
§
is not reasonable.
also
“the
the Service
narrowly drafted and
tions
in[§ 2.32]
regulation, we
interpret
To
authority
give the
intended to
Service
United
plain language.
look
to its
first
opera-
government
ensure that
needs to
(9th
569, 574
Hagberg, 207 F.3d
States v.
interference.”
48
proceed
tions
without
Cir.2000)
Transp.
(citing Reno v. National
(June
(em-
30,1983)
30252,
Fed.Reg.
30259
(9th
Bd., 45 F.3d
1379
Cir.
Safety
added).
government
on
phasis
The focus
1995)).
presume
legislation,
As with
we
employees
operations
opposed
—as
they meant and
said what
the drafters
regulation’s
themselves —reveals that
Nat’l
they said. Connecticut
meant what
goal
protect
is to
and enable
Germain,
249, 253-54,
503 U.S.
Bank v.
protect
employees
functions and to
(1992).
If
112
Bucher’s conversation with Jacobs validat- ed Boxx’s concern that he would meddle in Sufficiency the Evidence. the investigation, leading rangers that, alternatively argues even try intercept and Jacobs on trail rather accepting interpretation the district court’s than wait for him in the parking lot. Fur- 2.32(a)(1), of 36 C.F.R. there was insuffi- thermore, by “playing possum” act —an prove intentionally cient evidence to likely by facilitated warning Bucher? —Ja- government employee interfered with a cobs added process by hours to the arrest agent engaged duty. in an official We forcing carry him off the sufficiency review claims de novo to deter- trail, ambulance, call and wait for an and whether, viewing mine escort him to hospital. Bucher’s inten- light prosecution, most favorable to the tional acts thus set in motion a chain of any rational trier of fact could have found events interfered with the beyond the essential elements of the crime their official of investigating duties doubt. v. Virginia, reasonable Jackson arresting Jacobs. evidence was 319, 2781, 443 U.S. 99 S.Ct. 61 sufficient. (1979); L.Ed.2d 560 United States v. AFFIRMED. (9th Cir.2003). Odom, , NOONAN, Circuit Judge,, dissenting: 2.32(a)(1) requires proof Section Bucher, If Gabriel speaking after . specific govern intent interfere with a *6 ranger, had turned around to walk back Buehler, agent. ment United States v. 793 down, farther and never reached his elder- (E.D.Wash.1992). 971, F.Supp. 974 “[C]ul Jacobs, ly might friend Robert have pable intent ... can be inferred from the charged been with disobeying ranger’s defendant’s conduct and from the sur lawful order and conceivably might rounding circumstances.” United States v. charged have been attempting with to in- Hernandez-Franco, 189 F.3d 1155 terfere with-the ranger’s performance of (9th Cir.1999) (quoting United States v. duty. official He could not have been (9th Smith, Cir.1992)) with, charged of, or convicted actual inter- (alteration Hernandez-Franco). in Here ference because he would not spoken have Bucher walked down the trail and spoke to to Jacobs. The interference in Jacobs within minutes of learning that the this no case is .better. rangers planned this, to arrest him. From any rational fact finder could conclude that According majority to the opinion, Buch- (1) he: help returned to the trail to Jacobs er ranger’s interfered with the duty by (2) avoid arrest warned Jacobs of rang causing feign Jacobs to unconsciousness (3) intent, which, ers’ enabled eight Jacobs- to for six to Curiously hours. that re- mentally concoct and rehearse his per piece markable of playacting was unknown Although formance. there is no direct evi government lawyer to the prosecuted actually Jacobs, dence of what he said Bucher. It is fair to infer that to conclude a warning spoke reasonable to Jacobs and told him rang- of the delivered on what based plan. knew be er’s But warning did this interfere fore the conversation and on what with rangers?- Jacobs The majority opinion en- ’ shortly did afterward. gages Circumstantial evi in genuinely ingenious invention in dence establishes an intent supposing interfere. that Bucher’s words led Jacobs people’s It came to the medical at- No A. possum. fainting play feign faking— that he was sce- tention imaginative this testimony supports nario. Q. Being unconscious. only supplies Bucher’s counsel who It is five miles in was on was The trail Jacobs faking being uncon- statement “he was crater. steeply up from a It went
length. ranger only gives the infor- scious.” average person” good “the It takes as to the of the medical mation belief four hours to hike health three to physical 6 to after hospital 8 hours people minutes only 20 behind Jacobs was out. was removed from the trail. When Jacobs Bucher, to the been close so he must have government had the chance to reexam- a climbing up end and had been trail’s ranger, exchange place: took ine the this hours. have for over three We sharp slope Q. do it was after Mr. Jacobs as to his health. We So information no upon talked to the and then It is fair inference defendant age know —79. average seeing you appeared that he age is not the became of that person exercising ill? had been to become hiking. Jacobs strenuously for several hours. A. correct. That’s Mr. Q. And the fact that Jacobs testimony that was to the According feigned illness or this illness— this ranger, from by elicited that, it was—did what extra whichever time that saw Jacobs you have to do? activity caused unconscious he “fell approaching, into It us to call an ambulance A. caused an ambu- summoned state.” the, from from Kola bring on a crew after three or four hours. It arrived lance. (inaudible) three hospital and take to the Ac- hospital. to a was then taken Jacobs (inaudible). or four hours “After three or four cording ranger: hours, that he would Mr. Jacobs decided Q. Nothing further. (inaudible) out that basically he found short, testimony on no direct In with stay there until going to
we unconsciousness, gov- feigned *7 found out Once he was cleared. medical referred to explicitly redirect ernment on leave, he going not became he was that feigning illness or having either an Jacobs from the suddenly released well was truly illness, It is “whichever was.” In recognizance.” on his own hospital knowl- prosecutor, that remarkable short, falling uncon- hours 6 to 8 after facts, examining per- edgeable about scious, to be conscious Jacobs was found happened, as to had witness what cipient to leave. enough well testimony that Jacobs any did not elicit left to the possum. That was playing was cross-examination, ranger testi- On imagination of this court. he to Mr. Jacobs “By got the time we fied: ranger are by then ranger was The facts testified to unconscious.” The was after Jacobs brought to 6 to 8 hours when between as Jacob’s state asked he revived to be unconscious appeared the ambulance: successfully could That one hospital. that whole Q. And he was unconscious deceiving expe- long period for such a bluff time? personnel, and rangers, ambulance rienced (inaudible). A. He was unconscious unlikely. In highly is personnel hospital event, bluffing was unconscious, 6 to 8 any hours Q. Okay. But he was by any witness. testified faking being unconscious. faint- Suppose go one assumes Jacobs But did not Jacobs back into the crater the.rangers any ed when he saw because he or take action to evade arrest. warning they Bucher’s through knew It judicial Conclusion. is virtue of our event, him. In coming to arrest system subject that a fine can be the $35 warning Bucher’s would have interfered appeal. of an It is a virtue of the mem- rangers’ with the work. But one would bers of this court that can see and by reach that conclusion one’s initial as- state the of penalizing harshness a man for why sumption as to Jacobs fainted. The not, warning however, It any his friend. is supported by testimony, conclusion is not justice uphold service to a conviction on by it argued government. nor is the basis of a scenario unsupported by the government does not respectfully contend that evidence. I dissent. responsible Bucher is to be held for inter- if
fering ranger 79-year-old with the
Jacobs, apprehensive appearance, at their
became ill. Nor did the em-
phasize playing possum theory the colorful by my colleagues. govern-
advanced theory in appeal
ment’s its brief on this as follows: . SQUAW VALLEY DEVELOPMENT (and Rangers) Boxx the other COMPANY; Squaw Valley Corpo Ski planned to arrest Jacobs when he ration; Squaw Valley Preserve, Plain Instead, emerged from Crater Trail. tiffs-Appellants, interference, of Bucher’s because Rangers had to undertake the more dif- GOLDBERG; Martin Singer, Harold
ficult task of apprehending along Jacobs Defendants-Appellees. precipitous trail. Had Jacobs suc- cessfully floor, retreated to the crater No. 02-17346. might have received assistance from oth- Appeals, States Court of ers, prevented rangers from as- and/or Ninth Circuit. (TR 16). certaining identity his true Moreover, (apparent) advance warn- Argued and Submitted Feb. 2004. ing impeding arrest removed the tac- July Filed surprise, tical element of and enabled unconsciousness, to feign making *8 (eventual) problematic. arrest more Just as no supports govern- feigned
ment’s contention un- trail, testimony
consciousness on so no
supports government’s contention change were forced to then-
plans to disadvantage of their investi-
gation. score, On that ranger testified
on cross-examination: worries were that it would
prolong investigation if he went back
into the crater.