Case Law United States v. Jereb

United States v. Jereb

Document Cited Authorities (45) Cited in (48) Related

Scott Keith Wilson, Assistant Federal Public Defender (Kathryn N. Nester, Federal Public Defender, and Jessica Stengel, Attorney, with him on the briefs), District of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, for DefendantAppellant.

Ryan D. Tenney, Assistant United States Attorney (John W. Huber, United States Attorney, with him on the brief), District of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Before PHILLIPS, McHUGH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

McHUGH, Circuit Judge.

Following a jury trial, Aaron Bradley Jereb was convicted of forcibly opposing a federal officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(b), along with three lesser crimes. The trial judge sentenced Mr. Jereb to prison for seventy-two months, to be followed by thirty-six months of supervised release. As a special condition of that release, Mr. Jereb will be required to participate in a mental health treatment program.

Mr. Jereb asks this court to vacate his § 111(b) conviction and remand for a new trial. In the alternative, he asks us to reverse the imposition of mental health treatment and remand for resentencing. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm both the conviction and sentence.

I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual History

This case arises out of a roadside brawl between Mr. Jereb and Darren Schiedel,1 a law enforcement officer of the United States Forest Service. Officer Schiedel and his K-9 partner, a German Shepherd called Livo, were driving home on October 15, 2015, when they happened upon a red Chevrolet Blazer parked on the side of a remote, narrow road in Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest ("Uinta"). Thinking that unusual given the late hour and lack of nearby recreation opportunities, Officer Schiedel decided to stop, pulling up behind the Blazer. He engaged his truck’s side spotlight, exited, and approached, for the moment leaving Livo behind.

Mr. Jereb was seated in the Blazer’s front passenger seat. His girlfriend at the time, Amber Haanpaa, was in the driver’s seat. That morning, Mr. Jereb and Ms. Haanpaa each took three to five hits of methamphetamine and then drove from their home in Rock Springs, Wyoming, to Salt Lake City, Utah, apparently for the purpose of retrieving Mr. Jereb’s motorcycle from impoundment.2 Those plans soon changed. Upon arriving in Salt Lake City, Ms. Haanpaa purchased $900 worth of heroin, some of which she and Mr. Jereb intermittently smoked in a downtown parking lot for the next 90 minutes or so.3 Eventually, Mr. Jereb and Ms. Haanpaa got something to eat and then spent an hour or two at a music store before setting off for the three-hour trek back to Rock Springs. On the way out of town, they stopped at Uinta’s Lambs Canyon to again use drugs, as was Ms. Haanpaa’s custom on her return trips from Salt Lake. Ms. Haanpaa pulled out a sheet of heroin and started smoking it; she believes Mr. Jereb partook. Next, she crushed some methamphetamine on a mirror and snorted it with a "tooter," or a rolled-up receipt. She handed the tooter to Mr. Jereb, who was about to snort the next line when Officer Schiedel pulled up behind them.

Ms. Haanpaa attempted to hide the drug paraphernalia, but her efforts were to no avail. About two hours later, after investigation and questioning not relevant on appeal, Officer Schiedel wrote drug possession citations for both Mr. Jereb and Ms. Haanpaa. Believing Mr. Jereb was sober enough to drive back to Wyoming, Officer Schiedel told them they were free to go. At trial, Officer Schiedel testified that he "wanted out of there at that point." App. App’x, Vol. III, at 355. Mr. Jereb’s erratic behavior worried him. He was "wild eyed," with "a real direct gaze about him," and "it was getting to the point where I was starting to get a little bit concerned about his demeanor towards me." Id. at 317. When Officer Schiedel attempted to hand him his citation, for instance, Mr. Jereb just stared into Officer Schiedel’s eyes. But the Blazer’s engine would not start, so Ms. Haanpaa asked Officer Schiedel if he would be willing to use his patrol truck to jumpstart it. Not wanting to leave them stranded, Officer Schiedel agreed.

Mr. Jereb exited from the driver’s seat, put on a black leather jacket, and retrieved jumper cables from the back of the Blazer. That concerned Officer Schiedel because the jumper cables "seemed like a pretty good weapon." Id. at 356. He was also concerned that Mr. Jereb may have put on the leather jacket for the purpose of protecting himself in the event of a fight. Nevertheless, they succeeded in jumpstarting the Blazer without incident. Officer Schiedel detached the jumper cables from the battery and started to return to his patrol truck. At trial, he described what happened next:

... Mr. Jereb was standing by the front right quarter panel on the passenger side. He looked [at] me, I would say close to my eyes but not really. It appeared to me that he was looking at my face or slightly above my eyes, not like making eye contact at this point.
....
When I started to retreat back to my vehicle, he stated, you don't look so good, officer, something to that effect. And I said, I feel great. I feel fine. He moved around the vehicle to where we were both in front of the red Chevy Blazer and said, again, stated, you don't look so good. And I again replied, you know, I feel fine. Confusing words to me at that time.
[Prosecutor:] What did you do after the second time the defendant told you you didn't look so good?
[Officer Schiedel:] The way my radio is positioned on my body, I would have reached up with my left hand and engaged the radio and stated my name or my call sign and asked for a backup unit at that point.
....
[Prosecutor:] When you called for backup, was Mr. Jereb within a distance where he would have heard what you said?
[Officer Schiedel:] Within slightly over probably an arm’s reach, probably within four feet of me.
[Prosecutor:] And would you have said it loud enough so he could have heard?
[Officer Schiedel:] I would have to.
[Prosecutor:] When you called for backup, what happened?
[Officer Schiedel:] I don't remember anything happening on the radio. Our radio, there’s a beep prior to the transmission or after, and I can't recall at this time, to allow you to know that that transmission has gone out. I don't remember hearing anything on the radio at that point.
[Prosecutor:] And did the defendant say something at that point?
[Officer Schiedel:] Yes.
[Prosecutor:] What did he say?
[Officer Schiedel:] They're not going to get here in time to help you.
[Prosecutor:] Officer Schiedel, how did you take that statement from the defendant?
[Officer Schiedel:] Aggressive, assaultive statement.
[Prosecutor:] Did you have a reaction to his statement that they wouldn't get there in time to help?
[Officer Schiedel:] I did. I reached out and pushed my deployment button for canine Livo.

Id. at 358–60. Officer Schiedel testified that Livo immediately came to his side. Mr. Jereb then "made some comments to the dog, c[a]joling him, kind of trying to get him, drawing him to him, saying what a nice dog he was and tried to get him to come to him." Id. at 362.

At around this time Ms. Haanpaa exited the Blazer, where she had been sitting, and asked Mr. Jereb to return to the Blazer. According to Officer Schiedel, Livo responded by repositioning himself in between Officer Schiedel, Mr. Jereb, and Ms. Haanpaa, bringing him closer to Mr. Jereb than he had been previously. Mr. Jereb then "reached out very quickly and grabbed canine Livo" by his collar, twisting it and causing Livo to scream in pain. Id. at 368, 370–71. From there, Officer Schiedel’s recollection is limited:

[Officer Schiedel:] When I heard the scream, I don't remember anything from that point. I have a very hard time remembering. My guess is I stepped forward to defend my partner.
....
[Prosecutor:] Was there a physical confrontation?
[Officer Schiedel:] I believe so, yes.
[Prosecutor:] Tell us, walk us through, Officer Schiedel, what you recall transpiring after the defendant had grabbed the collar.
[Officer Schiedel:] I have no memory from the initial contact. I remember from the front left quarter panel where we were standing next to my vehicle, I remember—my next recollection is farther from there to the west, which would have been towards the hillside, the next recollection that I have is canine Livo had Mr. Jereb down on the ground by his right forearm. Our dogs are bite and hold. He had bitten his right arm and was holding him down. And I can remember his back, and I remember thinking, this is probably a good place to use a Taser. I think the Taser was already in my hand at that point, so I deployed the Taser at that point.

Id. at 372. Ms. Haanpaa, on the other hand, gave a somewhat different account.4

Ms. Haanpaa was sitting in the driver’s seat when the Blazer was jumpstarted; she turned the key in the ignition. Once the car was running, she remained in the driver’s seat for a minute or two, waiting for Mr. Jereb, who was still outside. It was late at night and she could not see either man from the driver’s seat, so she exited the vehicle "to go see what was going on and why we were not leaving." Id. at 723. She then testified as follows:

[Ms. Haanpaa:] I saw Aaron and the officer just standing looking at each other. They were talking. I couldn't hear what they were saying because the Blazer was on and it is a really loud vehicle.
[Prosecutor:] What did you see next?
[Ms. Haanpaa:] I saw the officer say something in his radio and he pulled out his taser and it got crazy.
[Prosecutor:] What is Officer Schiedel saying now?
[Ms. Haanpaa:] Telling Aaron to get down.
[Prosecutor:] How are you able to hear him now?
[Ms. Haanpaa:] Because I had walked over to him. I was in front of the vehicle, in front of Aaron’s vehicle.
[Prosecutor:] How many times does Officer Schiedel
...
5 cases
Document | Kansas Supreme Court – 2018
State v. Fleming
"...to the jury, it cannot now contend that the instructions did not provide an accurate statement of the law."); United States v. Jereb , 882 F.3d 1325, 1341 (10th Cir. 2018) ("[T]he invited error doctrine applies in cases such as this one, where the defendant requested the jury instruction he..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit – 2024
United States v. McBride
"...we review a "district court's decision to give or not give a particular jury instruction" for abuse of discretion. United States v. Jereb, 882 F.3d 1325, 1335 (10th Cir. 2018). "[W]e review the instructions as a whole de novo to determine whether they accurately informed the jury of the gov..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas – 2019
United States v. Williamson
"...agreement to the jury instruction and failure to object would barhim from challenging it on appeal. See United States v. Jereb, 882 F.3d 1325, 1335 (10th Cir. 2018); see also United States v. Cornelius, 696 F.3d 1307, 1319 (10th Cir. 2012) (under invited error doctrine, appellate court will..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit – 2022
United States v. Wells
"...law or fact, a party may not at a later stage use the error to set aside the immediate consequences of the error. United States v. Jereb , 882 F.3d 1325, 1338 (10th Cir. 2018) (quotations, citations, and alteration omitted). Wells's complaint about Instruction No. 12 has nothing to do with ..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit – 2021
United States v. Perrault
"...when defendants challenge jury instructions on appeal that they proffered in the trial court. See, e.g. , United States v. Jereb , 882 F.3d 1325, 1335–41 (10th Cir. 2018) ; Sturm , 673 F.3d at 1280–81. But this case isn't so straightforward. As we have previously recognized, the invited-err..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
1 books and journal articles
Document | Núm. 111-5, May 2023 – 2023
The Racialized Violence of Police Canine Force
"...the requirements necessary for a ‘proper’ bite.” Id . 250. 251. See Meade, supra note 8, at 399; see also United States v. Jereb, 882 F.3d 1325, 1332 (10th Cir. 2018) (quoting a canine off‌icer describing a “full mouth bite” as follows: “[T]he rear of the teeth are engaging the forearm all ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
1 books and journal articles
Document | Núm. 111-5, May 2023 – 2023
The Racialized Violence of Police Canine Force
"...the requirements necessary for a ‘proper’ bite.” Id . 250. 251. See Meade, supra note 8, at 399; see also United States v. Jereb, 882 F.3d 1325, 1332 (10th Cir. 2018) (quoting a canine off‌icer describing a “full mouth bite” as follows: “[T]he rear of the teeth are engaging the forearm all ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | Kansas Supreme Court – 2018
State v. Fleming
"...to the jury, it cannot now contend that the instructions did not provide an accurate statement of the law."); United States v. Jereb , 882 F.3d 1325, 1341 (10th Cir. 2018) ("[T]he invited error doctrine applies in cases such as this one, where the defendant requested the jury instruction he..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit – 2024
United States v. McBride
"...we review a "district court's decision to give or not give a particular jury instruction" for abuse of discretion. United States v. Jereb, 882 F.3d 1325, 1335 (10th Cir. 2018). "[W]e review the instructions as a whole de novo to determine whether they accurately informed the jury of the gov..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas – 2019
United States v. Williamson
"...agreement to the jury instruction and failure to object would barhim from challenging it on appeal. See United States v. Jereb, 882 F.3d 1325, 1335 (10th Cir. 2018); see also United States v. Cornelius, 696 F.3d 1307, 1319 (10th Cir. 2012) (under invited error doctrine, appellate court will..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit – 2022
United States v. Wells
"...law or fact, a party may not at a later stage use the error to set aside the immediate consequences of the error. United States v. Jereb , 882 F.3d 1325, 1338 (10th Cir. 2018) (quotations, citations, and alteration omitted). Wells's complaint about Instruction No. 12 has nothing to do with ..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit – 2021
United States v. Perrault
"...when defendants challenge jury instructions on appeal that they proffered in the trial court. See, e.g. , United States v. Jereb , 882 F.3d 1325, 1335–41 (10th Cir. 2018) ; Sturm , 673 F.3d at 1280–81. But this case isn't so straightforward. As we have previously recognized, the invited-err..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex