United States of America v. David Woods

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID WOODS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-30263
D.C. No. 9:14-cr-00027-DLC-7
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Dana L. Christensen, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 6, 2016**
Seattle, Washington
Before: PAEZ and BYBEE, Circuit Judges and TIGAR,*** District Judge.
Defendant-Appellant David Woods appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds. “We review de
FILED
JUN 17 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
*** The Honorable Jon S. Tigar, District Judge for the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

novo a district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss the indictment on double
jeopardy grounds.” United States v. Bates, 917 F.2d 388, 392 (9th Cir. 1990). We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
First, the successive prosecution of charges in two separate venues which
“involve distinct transactions occurring at different times” does not violate the
Double Jeopardy Clause. United States v. Saccoccia, 18 F.3d 795, 799 (9th Cir.
1994). Here, no double jeopardy violation occurred because Woods’ convictions
in the Western District of New York and the District of Montana involved his
participation in two different online child pornography bulletin boards, and Woods
has not shown these boards were related in any way.
Second, even assuming that the prosecutions in Montana and New York
involved the same acts or transactions, “[a] substantive crime and a conspiracy to
commit that crime are not the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.”
Saccoccia, 18 F.3d at 798 (citing United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378, 389 (1992)).
Therefore, no double jeopardy violation occurred for the additional reason that
Woods pleaded guilty to distribution of child pornography in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A) in the Western District of New York, while he pleaded
guilty to conspiracy to advertise child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
2251(d) & (e) in the District of Montana.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --