FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 15 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-30125
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00061-KI-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
RONALD JAMES DAVENPORT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Garr M. King, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2013 **
Seattle, Washington
Before: TASHIMA and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and COLLINS, District
Judge.***
*
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 Raner C. Collins, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
Defendant-Appellant, Ronald James Davenport (“Davenport”) was
convicted by jury trial on four counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1521, retaliating
against a Federal judge or Federal law enforcement officer by false claim or
slander of title. He appeals his conviction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm the district court.
1. Davenport filed documents entitled “Notice of Claim of Maritime Lien”
on properties of government officials. In each document, the “vessels” are
identified by the officials’ names, i.e. the U.S. M/V James McDevitt, the U.S. M/V
James Larson, etc. The documents also contain a detailed description of the
officials’ real and personal property that is attached to the claim along with “any
other thing of value as needed to satisfy this claim.” Davenport argues that these
documents cannot be the basis of his conviction because they are notices of liens,
not actual liens, and that they are invalid because they could not attach to a
maritime vessel.
The district court properly applied the plain meaning of the terms “lien” and
“encumbrance” in concluding that Davenport’s “Notice of Claims of Maritime
Liens” were in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1521. See U.S. v. Havelock, 664 F.3d
1284, 1289 (9th Cir. 2012). The district court found that Davenport’s filings
resulted in government officials’ property being encumbered, and that 18 U.S.C. §
-2-
1521 is “intended to penalize individuals who seek to intimidate and harass Federal
judges and employees by filing false liens.” H.R. Rep. No. 110–218, pt. 1 at 827
(2007).
2. Davenport contends that his conviction should be reversed because the
government failed to prove the mens rea element of the crime. To succeed,
Davenport must show that when viewing the verdict in the light most favorable to
the Government, no rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of
the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Johnson, 357 F.3d 980, 983
(9th Cir. 2004). The Supreme Court has held that “[i]gnorance of the law will not
excuse any person, either civilly or criminally.” Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie,
Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, 130 S. Ct. 1605, 1606 (2010). An “act is done
knowingly if the defendant is aware of the act and does not act through ignorance,
mistake, or accident. The government is not required to prove that the defendant
knew that his actions were unlawful.” United States v. Greer, 640 F.3d 1011, 1017
(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 834, 181 L. Ed. 2d 540 (U.S. 2011).
The uncontroverted evidence shows that Davenport had no business
relationship with his victims, and that he intentionally filed the liens and directed
their attachment to various real properties. Thus, the jury reasonably found that
-3-
Davenport had knowledge that the claims were fabricated and did in fact
knowingly file such liens.
The district court’s decision is AFFIRMED.
-4-