UNITED STATES of Am., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ted GORD, Defendant-Appellee, 77 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
UNITED STATES of Am., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ted GORD, Defendant-Appellee, 77 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“a violation of the state cigarette tax law is a predicate to a ccta violation.”
26 citation events (24 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Funds From First Regional Bank Account XXXXX1859 Held in the Name of R K Co. (wawd, 2009-03-11)
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United States v. Funds From First Regional Bank Account XXXXX1859 Held in the Name of R K Co. (3×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
W.D. Wash. · 2009 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a violation of the state cigarette tax law is a predicate to a ccta violation.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ho-Chunk, Inc. v. Sessions
D.D.C. · 2017 · confidence medium
United States v. Baker, 63 F.3d 1478, 1484-86 (9th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Morrison, 686 F.3d 94, 96 (2d Cir. 2012) (affirming application of CCTA to on-reservation cigarette seller in New York); Grey Poplars, Inc. v. 1,371,100 Assorted Brands of Cigarettes, 282 F.3d 1175, 1177 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[T]he CCTA is a federal statute of general applicability and it applies equally to Indians, even on the reservation, as it does to others.”); United States v. Gord, 77 F.3d 1192, 1194 (9th Cir. 1996) (applying CCTA to manager of a tribal smoke shop); United States v. Parry, No. 4:13-C…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Morrison
2d Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
Code § 458-20-192 ); United States v. Smiskin, 487 F.3d 1260, 1263 (9th Cir.2007) (citing Wash. Rev.Code Ann. §§ 82.24.030, -.250(1)); United States v. Gord, 77 F.3d 1192, 1193 (9th Cir.1996) (citing Wash. Rev.Code Ann. §§ 82.24.030, -.050; Wash. Admin.
examined Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Wilbur (4×)
9th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
Thus, “[a] violation of the state cigarette tax law is a predicate to a CCTA violation.” United States v. Gord, 77 F.3d 1192, 1193 (9th Cir.1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Mahoney-Meyer
9th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
Defendants’ argument that no predicate act exists because the incident of tax and pre-notification obligation fall upon the first taxable event in Washington is foreclosed by United States v. Gord, 77 F.3d 1192, 1194 (9th Cir.1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Fiander (2×) also: Cited "see"
E.D. Wash. · 2005 · confidence medium
The cigarettes are contraband under federal law because they were possessed in violation of the Washington cigarette tax statute and numbered more than 60,000.”); United States v. Gord, 77 F.3d 1192, 1194 (9th Cir.1996) (stating that “even if the [defendant] is a tribal organization, the unstamped cigarettes were contraband under the CCTA unless they were preapproved by the Washington Department of Revenue and were sold to Native Americans”); United *1140 States v. Baker, 63 F.3d 1478, 1487 (9th Cir.1995) (stating that “[u]nder Washington law, mere possession of unstamped cigarettes, e…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Roman Skoczen
7th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
Although a violation of state cigarette tax law may be a predicate to a CCTA violation, United States v. Gord, 77 F.3d 1192, 1193 (9th Cir.1996), that does not mean the individual violating the federal law must also be in violation of the state law.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Skoczen, Roman
7th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
Although a violation of state cigarette tax law may be a predicate to a CCTA violation, United States v. Gord, 77 F.3d 1192, 1193 (9th Cir. 1996), that does not mean the individual violating the federal law must also be in viola- tion of the state law.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Robertson v. Washington State Liquor Control Board
Wash. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
United States v. Gord, 77 F.3d 1192, 1194 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (Gord II) (citing Baker, 63 F.3d at 1486-87 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Robertson v. State Liquor Control Bd.
Wash. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
United States v. Gord, 77 F.3d 1192, 1194 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam) ( Gord II) (citing Baker, 63 F.3d at 1486-87 ).
cited Cited "see" United States v. 4,432 Mastercases of Cigarettes
9th Cir. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Gord, 77 F.3d 1192, 1193 (9th Cir.1996).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Nowden
5th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Gord, 77 F.3d 1192, 1194 (9th Cir. 1996).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Grey Poplars Inc v. One Million Three Hundred Seventy-One One Thousand One Hundred
9th Cir. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence medium
United States v. Baker, 63 F.3d 1478, 1484-86 (9th Cir.1995); see also United States v. Gord, 77 F.3d 1192, 1193-94 (9th Cir.1996). 6 Nor is there any doubt concerning the validity of the state tax law to which the CCTA refers.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Grey Poplars Inc. v. One Million Three Hundred Seventy-One Thousand One Hundred (1,371,100) Assorted Brands of Cigarettes
9th Cir. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence medium
United States v. Baker, 63 F.3d 1478, 1484-86 (9th Cir.1995); see also United States v. Gord, 77 F.3d 1192, 1193-94 (9th Cir.1996).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1358, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2312 United States of America
v.
Ted Gord
94-30386.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Mar 1, 1996.
77 F.3d 1192
Kris A. McLean, Assistant United States Attorney, Helena, Montana, for plaintiff-appellant., Julio K. Morales, Missoula, Montana, for defendant-appellee., Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding.
Browning, Canby, Per Curiam, Rea.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The government appeals the district court’s dismissal of Ted Gord’s indictment. We reverse and remand for trial.

I.

Ted Gord managed a smoke shop in Tacoma, Washington, known as the Thunderbird Trading Post. According to the indictment, Gord and co-conspirators knowingly and unlawfully received, possessed, and distributed cigarettes that did not have tax stamps required by Washington state law, and laundered millions of dollars from the scheme in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(l)(A)(i), 2341-2342.

The district court dismissed the indictment, adopting the opinion in a similar ease, United States v. Brigman, 874 F.Supp. 1125 (E.D.Wash.1994). The government appeals.

II.

The federal Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act (CCTA) prohibits shipping, transporting, receiving, possessing, selling, distributing, or purchasing more than 60,000 cigarettes that “bear no evidence of the payment of applicable State cigarette taxes in the State where such cigarettes are found, if such State requires a stamp ... to be placed on packages or other containers of cigarettes to evidence payment of cigarette taxes.... ” 18 U.S.C. §§ 2341-2342.

A violation of the state cigarette tax law is a predicate to a CCTA violation. Under Washington state law, cigarette packages must bear stamps proving payment of taxes. Wash.Rev.Code §§ 82.24.030, 82.24.050. However, if Native Americans obtain pre-approval from the Washington Department of Revenue, they “may make purchases of unstamped cigarettes ... for resale to [Native Americans].” Wash.Admin.Code § 458-20-192.

III.

The district court concluded Congress did not intend the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act to apply to Native Americans. See Brigman, 874 F.Supp. at 1131. We recently rejected this argument, however, in[*1194] affirming the convictions of two of Gord’s alleged co-conspirators. See United States v. Baker, 63 F.3d 1478, 1484-86 (9th Cir.1995).

We noted in Baker that “[a]ny unstamped cigarettes brought into- Washington for purposes of sale to Indians must be preapproved by the state’s Department of Revenue,” and held that transporting unapproved cigarettes into Washington violated Washington law and the CCTA. Id. at 1486-87.

Gord argues that not every violation of state cigarette tax law is also a violation of the CCTA. The CCTA prohibits possession of unstamped cigarettes only if taxes are due. He argues no taxes were due on the cigarettes he possessed and distributed, because (he claims) the Thunderbird Trading Post was a tribal organization, and distributed the cigarettes only to Native Americans. However, under Washington law, all unstamped, unapproved cigarettes are “subject to seizure[,] ... tax and penalties,” even if possessed by and distributed to Native Americans. Wash.Admin.Code § 458-20-192. Thus, even if the Thunderbird Trading Post is a tribal organization, the unstamped cigarettes were contraband under the CCTA unless they were preapproved by the Washington Department of Revenue and were sold to Native Americans.

Gord also argues the indictment should have negated the Native American exception by alleging the cigarettes either (1) were not preapproved by the Washington Department of Revenue, or (2) were sold to non-Native Americans. However, “|w]hile an indictment must ordinarily charge every essential element of an offense, it need not negate every applicable statutory exception.” Echavarria-Olarte v. Reno, 35 F.3d 395, 399 (9th Cir.1994). The indictment need not allege the unstamped cigarettes were not preapproved, or were sold to non-Native Americans. United States v. Blinder, 10 F.3d 1468, 1476 (9th Cir.1993). See also McKelvey v. United States, 260 U.S. 353, 357, 43 S.Ct. 132, 134, 67 L.Ed. 301 (1922); United States v. Green, 962 F.2d 938, 941 (9th Cir.1992); United States v. Hester, 719 F.2d 1041, 1042-43 (9th Cir.1983).

Gord’s indictment closely tracks the language of the CCTA, and alleges all of the elements of the offense. It alleges Gord knowingly and unlawfully shipped, transported, received, possessed and distributed contraband cigarettes which did not bear the tax stamps required by Washington law, reciting specific names, dates and descriptions of the shipments.

These allegations are sufficient to inform Gord of the nature of the charges, enable him to prepare a defense, and plead double jeopardy. See United States v. Alber, 56 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir.1995); United States v. Schmidt, 947 F.2d 362, 369 (9th Cir.1991).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.