Legal Opinion
United States v. Douglas Crooked Arm
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided June 8, 2015No. 13-30297, 13-30316PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
2Per curiam
Following conviction and sentencing upon Defendants-Appellants Douglas “Vance” Crooked Arm’s and Kenneth Shane’s (collectively Defendants) conditional guilty pleas in this case, Defendants appeal the district court’s denial of their pretrial Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Failure to State a Felony Claim. We consider the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate Defendants’ sentences, and remand.
I
A grand jury indicted Defendants on multiple counts of, among other things, knowingly and willfully…
3Cases cited30 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Immigration & Naturalization Service v. St. CyrSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Corley v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica FoundationSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by13 opinions
- State of Hawaii v. Donald TrumpCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- United States v. Neil A. ThomsenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
- Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. SuDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2017
- United States v. Gregory ObendorfCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018
- United States v. Douglas Crooked ArmCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.