United States v. Eugene Temkin (2015)

In United States v. Temkin, we held that because “[s]olicitation to commit murder-for- *1297 hire is a solicitation offense not specifically covered by its own Guidelines section, U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1 is the correct starting point.” 797 F.3d 682, 693 (9th Cir. 2015); see also id. (adding that "no Guidelines section expressly covers solicitation to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1958”).

“Following a bench trial, a district court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo and findings of fact are reviewed for clear error . . . .” United States v. Temkin, 797 F.3d 682, 688 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).

EHMER 71 United States v. Temkin, 797 F.3d 682, 688 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979), in the context of a bench trial).

The record contained ample evidence to support either that Domingo “was predisposed to commit the crime before being contacted by government agents,” or that he “was not induced by the government agents to commit the crime.” United States v. Temkin, 797 F.3d 682, 691 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Mejia, 559 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2009)).

Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Temkin, 797 F.3d 682, 688 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).

“Following a bench trial, a district court's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo . . . .” United States v. Temkin, 797 F.3d 682, 688 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing OneBeacon Ins.

The district court determined that Cordero’s underlying conduct was conspiracy to commit murder, and thus rightly referred to the Guideline governing “Conspiracy or Solicitation to Commit Murder,” U.S.S.G. § 2A1.5. [R. 116, PageID #2925.] See United States v. Temkin, 797 F.3d 682, 693-94 (9th Cir. 2015).

Sufficiency of the Evidence When challenged based on evidentiary sufficiency, a jury’s verdict is affirmed “if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Temkin, 797 F.3d 682, 688 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We affirm a district court’s judgment in a bench trial “if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Temkin, 797 F.3d 682, 688 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).

United States v. Temkin, 797 F.3d 682, 688 (9th Cir. 2015).

See, e.g., United States v. Lisyansky, 806 F.3d 706, 709-11 (2d Cir.2015); United States v. Temkin, 797 F.3d 682, 695 (9th Cir.2015); United States v. Smith, 755 F.3d 645, 647 (8th Cir.2014); United States v. Dotson, 570 F.3d 1067, 1069-70 (8th Cir.2009); United States v. Vasco, 564 F.3d 12, 23 (1st Cir.2009); see also United States v. Garcia, 204 F.Supp.2d 790, 795 (D.N.J.2002) (applying the cross reference to Section 2A1.5).

See United States v. Temkin, 797 F.3d 682 , 686–88 (9th Cir. 2015).

See United States v. Temkin, 797 F.3d 682, 688 (9th Cir. 2015).

See United States v. Temkin, 797 F.3d 682, 688 (9th Cir. 2015).

Jury Instr. 9th Cir. 6.2; see also United States v. Temkin, 797 F.3d 682, 691 (9th Cir. 2015).

See United States v. Temkin, 797 F.3d 682, 693-95 (9th Cir.2015).