United States of America v. Jaime Villa

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JAIME VILLA,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-10251
D.C. No.
CR 15-01149-PHX-NVW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona,
Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 10, 2018**
San Francisco, California
Before: MURGUIA and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and HINKLE,***
District Judge
A jury convicted the defendant on six counts of armed bank robbery in
________________________________
*This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as
provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**This panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***The Honorable Robert L. Hinkle, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Florida, sitting by designation.
FILED
OCT 24 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) and six corresponding counts of
brandishing a firearm in connection with a crime of violence in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c). The district court sentenced the defendant to six months in prison
on the bank robberies and the mandatory consecutive terms of seven years on the
first firearm count and 25 years on each additional firearm count. The defendant’s
total sentence is 132 years, 6 months.
The defendant raises four issues on appeal. We reject each.
First, the evidence was easily sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to
conclude that the defendant committed each of the offenses. In addition to other
evidence, at least one eyewitness identified the defendant as the person who
committed each of the first five robberies. And the defendant was arrested in
possession of the proceeds of the sixth robbery after a high-speed chase in which
the defendant exchanged gunfire with law enforcement officers.
Second, evidence of the chase was not inadmissible under Federal Rule of
Evidence 404(b). This is so for at least two reasons. The chase was inextricably
intertwined with the robbery, so Rule 404(b) does not apply at all. And the chase
was probative of identity, a permissible purpose explicitly recognized by the rule.
Third, binding precedent establishes that armed bank robbery in violation of
§ 2113(a) and (d) is a crime of violence under § 924(c). See United States v.
Watson, 881 F.3d 782, 785 (9th Cir. 2018).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Fourth, binding precedent makes clear that the sentence did not violate the
Eighth Amendment. See, e.g., United States v. Hungerford, 465 F.3d 1113, 1118
(9th Cir. 2006) (upholding a 159-year sentence based primarily on § 924(c));
United States v. Parker, 241 F.3d 1114, 1117-18 (9th Cir. 2001) (upholding a 74-
year sentence based primarily on § 924(c)); United States v. Harris, 154 F.3d 1082,
1084 (9th Cir. 1998) (upholding a 95-year sentence based primarily on § 924(c)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --