United States of America v. Angel Barcinas Manglona

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANGEL BARCINAS MANGLONA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-10029
D.C. No. 1:09-cr-00008-ARM-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of the Northern Mariana Islands
Alex R. Munson, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 12, 2010**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Angel Barcinas Manglona drove Wilbur Vic Masga Inos to a business
known as Rota Poker on the island of Rota in the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (“CNMI”). Inos proceeded to rob Rota Poker of cash using a rifle
FILED
OCT 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Manglona’s plea agreement includes a broad waiver of his appellate rights.1
The sole exception to this waiver allows Manglona to appeal the issue of “whether
the record supports the conclusion, as a matter of law, that as a result of the
Defendants’ actions, interstate or foreign commerce, or an item moving in
interstate commerce, was actually or potentially delayed, obstructed, or affected in
any way or degree.”
2
and ammunition provided by Manglona. Manglona entered into a plea agreement
whereby he pled guilty to one count of violating the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951,
for his role in the robbery. The district court sentenced Manglona to 41 months in
prison and three years of supervised release for the offense.
Conduct violates the Hobbs Act only if it “obstructs, delays, or affects
commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 1951(a). Manglona argues on appeal that the government could not have shown
this tie to commerce because, pursuant to § 501 of the Covenant to Establish a
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United
States of America (“the Covenant”), the Commerce Clause does not apply to the
CNMI. Assuming that Manglona has not waived this argument, it is without1
merit. In addressing a similar argument based on § 501 of the Covenant, we
determined that “[w]hether the commerce clause . . . ‘appl[ies] to’ the CNMI does
not affect the authority of Congress to enact legislation applicable to the CNMI.”
United States v. Chang Da Liu, 538 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir. 2008). Manglona’s

-- 2 of 3 --

3
argument would render that authority meaningless by preventing the government
from enforcing statutes passed pursuant to the Commerce Clause. Chang Da
Liu therefore forecloses Manglona’s contention.
The record contains sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the robbery
actually affected commerce. Rota Poker was engaged in business with entities
outside the CNMI, and it closed temporarily as a result of the robbery. No further
evidence is needed to satisfy the statutory requirement of a tie to commerce. See
United States v. Boyd, 480 F.3d 1178, 1179 (9th Cir. 2007) (affirming a Hobbs Act
conviction premised on a robbery that forced the temporary closure of a business
engaging in interstate transfers of money).
Finally, Manglona argues that the commerce element of the Hobbs Act is
unconstitutionally vague as applied to conduct in the CNMI. Manglona’s plea
agreement appears to waive this argument. Even if not waived, the argument is
precluded by United States v. Rodriguez, which held that “the common
understanding of the reach of the Commerce Clause” supplies “notice of the scope
of the conduct proscribed by section 1951.” 360 F.3d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 2004). In
light of Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause to enact legislation that
is effective in the CNMI, that holding is applicable to the CNMI.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --