USA v. Sanchez-Rodriguez et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEVIN GLENN PETERSON, II,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:23-cr-00090-RRB-KFR-3
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY MOTION TO DISMISS
INDICTMENT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Lack of Jurisdiction
(hereinafter “Motion”) filed by Defendant Kevin Glenn Peterson, II.1 The
government opposes the Motion.2 Because the United States District Court for the
District of Alaska (“District Court”) unquestionably has jurisdiction over this case,
the Court recommends that the Motion be DENIED.
Defendant asserts that the charges against him should be dismissed because
the District Court lacks jurisdiction over this case.3 Defendant suggests that the
District Court lacks jurisdiction because it was not “ordained and established by
Congress.”4 The government responds that the District Court has jurisdiction over
this federal criminal case pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231, which grants federal district
courts original jurisdiction “of all offenses against the laws of the United States.”5
The government adds that Congress did, in fact, ordain and establish the District
Court when it enacted the Alaska Statehood Act of 1958,6 which included the
1 Doc. 101.
2 Doc. 102.
3 Doc. 101 at 1–2.
4 Id. at 2 (citing Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866)).
5 Doc. 102 at 2.
6 Pub. L. No. 85-508, § 12(b), 72 Stat. 339, 348 (1958).
Case 3:23-cr-00090-RRB-KFR Document 103 Filed 02/23/24 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
`
R&R re Mot. to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
United States v. Peterson
3:23-cr-00090-RRB-KFR-3
2
following provision: “Alaska constitutes one judicial district. Court shall be held at
Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Ketchikan, and Nome.”7
Article III, § 1, of the Constitution provides that “[t]he judicial Power of the
United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as
the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” The congressional power
to ordain and establish inferior courts includes the power to “defin[e] their
jurisdiction.”8 Subject matter jurisdiction is necessary for a court to have power to
hear a particular type of case.9 Pursuant to its Article III authority, Congress has
lawfully established 94 federal district courts10 and conferred those courts with
subject matter jurisdiction over federal criminal prosecutions.11 In other words,
Congress has properly given federal district courts subject matter jurisdiction over
cases involving federal crimes,12 including this case, where Defendant has been
charged with multiple federal crimes.13 Furthermore, as the government explains,
Congress more specifically ordained and established the District Court as part of the
Alaska Statehood Act, which admitted the State of Alaska to the union.
Defendant’s argument to the contrary relies on the incorrect premise that the
entire federal judiciary exists solely by virtue of presidential action.14 Specifically,
Defendant appears to contend that the enactment of a 1948 bill that revised and
codified the laws related to the federal judiciary and judicial procedure was an
invalid “political act[]” because the president signed that bill “after Congress
adjourned and was not in session.”15 This argument has no merit. No law requires
that the president sign bills while Congress is still in session; the Constitution
7 Id. (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 81A); Doc. 102 at 2.
8 Palmore v. United States, 41 U.S. 389, 400–01 (1973).
9 United States v. Morton, 467 U.S. 822, 827 (1984).
10 Wellness Intern. Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 575 U.S. 665, 668 (2015).
11 18 U.S.C. § 3231.
12 United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 962 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3231).
13 See Doc. 4.
14 Doc. 101 at 2.
15 Id.; see also H.R. 3214, 80th Cong. (approved as Pub. L. No. 80-773) (1948).
Case 3:23-cr-00090-RRB-KFR Document 103 Filed 02/23/24 Page 2 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
`
R&R re Mot. to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
United States v. Peterson
3:23-cr-00090-RRB-KFR-3
3
requires only that, to become law, bills passed by Congress must be presented to and
signed by the president.16 The 1948 bill’s legislative history confirms that the bill
was enacted in accordance with these requirements: the House and Senate passed
the bill, and the president then signed it into law.17
In sum, the District Court has jurisdiction over Defendant’s case. The Court
therefore recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Lack of
Jurisdiction at Docket 101 be DENIED.
DATED this 23rd day of February, 2024 at Anchorage, Alaska.
s/ Kyle F. Reardon
KYLE F. REARDON
United States Magistrate Judge
District of Alaska
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a district court may designate a magistrate judge
to hear and determine matters pending before the Court. For dispositive matters, a
magistrate judge reports findings of fact and provides recommendations to the
presiding district court judge.18 A district court judge may accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations.19
A party may file written objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and
recommendations within fourteen (14) days.20 A response to the objections may be
filed within seven (7) days after any objection is filed.21 Objections and responses
are limited to five (5) pages in length and should not merely reargue positions
16 U.S. Const. art. I, § 7, cl. 2.
17 94 Cong. Rec. 7927, 8498, 8540, 8714, 9367 (1948).
18 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
19 Id. § 636(b)(1)(C).
20 Id.; L.M.J.R. 7(a)(1).
21 L.M.J. R. 7(a)(2).
Case 3:23-cr-00090-RRB-KFR Document 103 Filed 02/23/24 Page 3 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
`
R&R re Mot. to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
United States v. Peterson
3:23-cr-00090-RRB-KFR-3
4
previously presented. Rather, objections and responses should specifically identify
the findings or recommendations objected to, the basis of the objection, and any legal
authority in support. Reports and recommendations are not appealable orders. Any
notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of
the district court’s judgment.22
22 See Hilliard v. Kincheloe, 796 F.2d 308 (9th Cir. 1986).
Case 3:23-cr-00090-RRB-KFR Document 103 Filed 02/23/24 Page 4 of 4