United States v. Antoine Mercadel ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 15 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50105
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00921-DSF-2
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ANTOINE MICHAEL MERCADEL,
AKA Catt, AKA Tony,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Antoine Michael Mercadel appeals his conviction for conspiracy to bribe a
public official in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Mercadel contends that the district
court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss the indictment based on
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
outrageous government conduct. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
The criminal conspiracy was well underway when the government began its
investigation. Indeed, the government’s involvement started after Defendant
joined the conspiracy; after Defendant identified a correctional officer to
participate in the scheme; after the conspirators determined the necessary
specifications for the laptop; after Defendant established an outside contact to
obtain the laptop; and after money was transferred to Defendant’s contact to
purchase the laptop. “Because the government did not initiate the criminal activity,
but rather sought to crack an ongoing operation, its conduct was not outrageous
and did not violate due process.” United States v. Gurolla, 333 F.3d 944, 950 (9th
Cir. 2003); see also United States v. So, 755 F.2d 1350, 1353 (9th Cir. 1985) (“Our
sense of justice is not shocked . . . when the government merely infiltrates a
criminal organization, approaches persons already engaged in or anticipating a
criminal activity, or provides valuable and necessary items to the conspiracy.”
(internal citations omitted)).
Additionally, the district court did not clearly err in finding no evidence that
the Bureau of Prisons purposefully delayed or cancelled Defendant’s prison
transfer. See Gurolla, 333 F.3d at 950 (“[W]e accept the district court’s factual
2
findings unless they are clearly erroneous.”).
AFFIRMED.
3