Category Archives: Crime

9th Circuit rejects Stancil appeal

I thought that announcing my “medical leave of absence” would allow me to step away from this blog and from posts on Facebook.

But that has proved to be difficult.

It’s been frustrating to watch developments related to the ongoing Miske-related proceedings that have gone unreported.

Today I finally broke, and sought out the aid of Google’s Gemini AI assistant to help report on the 9th Circuit’s dismissal of John Stancil’s appeal of his 20-year sentence. The court’s decision was handed down over a month ago, and hasn’t been reported on.

I asked Gemini’s help in summarizing the arguments. Although I tried to tweak Gemini’s tone, I just didn’t have the time or energy to get control of it through detailed instructions.

I did, however, go through and edit the text to remove errors and ambituity. I hope that I was successful.

So, here’s my disclosure: I co-authored this blog post with Gemini, but I have to take responsiblity for any remaining errors.

The 9th Circuit Court dismisses Stancil’s appeal of his 20-year sentence

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals completely shut the door on John B. Stancil’s appeal of his 20-year sentence, the maximum for the crime of racketeering conspiracy. The court’s decision granting a government motion to dismiss was posted in late February.
The court ruled Stancil’s plea agreement included valid waiver of his right to appeal his case or sentence except under very limited circumstances.

Stancil’s attorney, Boise-based William Miles Pope, argued that comments by Federal Judge Derrick K. Watson during Stancil’s plea hearing opened the door to on of those limited exceptions, but the Ninth Circuit wasn’t buying it. The court concluded Watson’s choice of words simply “did not negate the written waiver of the right to appeal.”

Although rejecting Stancil’s appeal, the court also provided additional time to allow Pope to file a motion for reconsideration. The deadline for filing the motion has been extended to May 11.

Stancil’s appeal goes back to his guilty plea to a racketeering conspiracy charge tied to the violent “Miske Enterprise” in Hawaii. To dodge a trial, Stancil made a deal with the government. He agreed to plead guilty to the one racketeering conspriacy charge, and in return, prosecutors would drop twelve other serious counts and cap his maximum prison time at 20 years instead of a potential life sentence.

Part of this bargain meant signing a broad appeal waiver, standard in such plea agreements. Stancil agreed to give up his right to appeal his conviction and any sentence that fell “within the Guidelines range as determined by the Court at the time of sentencing”. At his sentencing, the district court crunched the numbers, figured his guideline range was 210 to 262 months, capped it at the 240-month statutory maximum, and gave him exactly 240 months behind bars. Since 240 months was right in that court-determined range, the government argued his appeal was totally blocked.

But Stancil claimed a “Get Out of Jail Free” Loophole. Even with that signed contract, Stancil appealed anyway. His entire argument hinged on whether comments by Judge Watson during his change-of-plea hearing opened the door to his appeal.

Stancil’s defense argued that the judge clearly and unambiguously told him he’d keep his right to appeal if his sentence was “something above the applicable sentencing guideline range”. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, if a judge gives you an unambiguous free pass to appeal, that spoken word overrides whatever you signed in the plea agreement.

Stancil also argued that the phrase “applicable guidelines range” legally means the correctly calculated range. In his appeal, Stancil argued that he deserved a lesser sentence because, in his view, he played only a minor role, rather than a central role, in murder-for-hire plot. If the court had agreed with him, his true guidelines range would have dropped to 188-235 months.

He argued that his 240-month sentence was technically “above” what he argued was the true applicable range, meaning the judge’s oral exception should let his appeal move forward.

Prosecutors responded with a motion to dismiss the appeal, insisting that Stancil’s written waiver was absolutely binding. They pushed back on Stancil’s narrative by adding some much-needed context from the hearing transcript.

They pointed out that right before the judge spoke, the prosecutor had detailed the waiver and specifically noted the exception only applied if the sentence went beyond the range “that the Court finds is applicable”. The judge then agreed with the prosecutor’s summary and warned Stancil that he was signing a “very broad, general waiver” of his rights.

The government argued that, at worst, the judge’s slight change in phrasing was just ambiguous—and precedent says that ambiguous statements from a judge aren’t enough to blow up an otherwise valid appeal waiver. Plus, they reminded the court that Stancil got a massive sweetheart deal, dodging a life sentence and getting a dozen charges dropped. They argued he shouldn’t be allowed to back out of his end of the bargain after reaping all those benefits.

It’s worth looking at Judge Watson’s review of Stancil’s criminal history to understand the gravity of this case.

Technically, Stancil stood before the court as a first-time felon with a low Criminal History Category of I. But Chief District Judge Derrick K. Watson made it very clear at sentencing that Stancil’s actual track record was incredibly violent and spanned years.

This wasn’t just a brief lapse in judgment. Judge Watson and the prosecution detailed a long list of crimes Stancil actively committed for the racketeering organization controlled by his half-brother, crime boss Michael J. Miske, Jr..

This included:

Murder-for-Hire: Stancil’s active role in a plot to assassinate a man named Joe Boy Tavares.

Chemical Attacks: Providing the toxic fumigant chloropicrin to a co-conspirator, which was then released into two crowded rival nightclubs (the Ginza and The District) on consecutive nights.

Armed Robberies: Participating in a clothing store robbery where he and his crew wore masks and used zip ties, a handgun, and a baton. He was also involved in robbing a methamphetamine dealer where they impersonated law enforcement officers.

A Deadly Ambush: A masked ambush at Aloha Tattoo that Stancil actually filmed on his phone, which ultimately ended with a co-conspirator getting stabbed to death.

Vicious Assaults: A string of brutal beatings targeting Miske’s business rivals. Victims were violently attacked and hospitalized for “crimes” as minor as handing out party invitations or bidding against Miske at local car auctions.

Speaking directly to Stancil, Judge Watson summed him up as a “key player in terrorizing the citizenry of this city and this county for years, doing the bidding of Mr. Miske any time he asked”.

In the end, the Ninth Circuit completely sided with the government. By granting the motion to dismiss, the court confirmed that Stancil’s written plea agreement holds up. The district court’s conversational summary at the hearing just wasn’t enough to rewrite the contract he had signed.

Did Mike Miske organize a conspiracy to nullify the jury’s forfeiture verdict?

Don’t miss Madeleine Valera’s story in Civil Beat on the latest twist in the saga of Mike Miske (“Mike Miske Killed Himself To Protect $20 Million Estate, Prosecutors Say“).

Valera does a good job of summarizing the government’s allegation that an ongoing investigation of Miske’s deaths found evidence of a successful conspiracy to smuggle fentynal into Honolulu’s Federal Detention Center. Miske then used the drugs first to inject himself for several days in order to appear to be a regular drug user, and then to administer an overdose he hoped would be determined to be accidental.

The allegations were made in a second amended complaint in the civil forfeiture lawsuit seeking to claim Miske’s properties.

If sustained by the evidence, which has been describe only in general terms, the government argues that the transfer of ownership from Miske to his trust was the product of a conspiracy to obstruct the criminal forfeiture proceeding following the jury’s decision that all of the itemized properties were subject to foreclose.

The government alleges that the plot started with extensive revisions Miske made to his revocable living trust in September 2024, which I described in a later Civil Beat story (“Miske’s Trust: A Look At His Moves To Control His Fortune From The Grave“).

According to the amended complaint:

In early 2025, an inmate incarcerated with MISKE at FDC Honolulu was interviewed by federal investigators about the circumstances surrounding
MISKE’s death. In his interview, the inmate identified MISKE’s source of supply for fentanyl while in custody at FDC Honolulu, identified other inmate(s) who obtained drugs from the same source of supply at the same time, and described his conversations with MISKE, who had expressed a belief and desire that his death by suicide would interfere with the federal government’s criminal forfeiture of the Defendant Properties, based on advice MISKE had received from his attorney(s).

Subsequent interviews with others who had been detained at the facility, as well as other unnamed sources (likely correctional officers or others with knowledge of the situation) identified the same person as Miske’s drug source, prosecutors allege.

Valera’s story fills in the details, with comments from the attorney representing the Miske trust in the forfeiture case.

I would expect federal prosecutors will file a criminal case that would disclose evidence gathered to date.

The section regarding the suicide allegations appeared for the first time in the amended lawsuit filed in Honolulu’s Federal District Court this week.

Federal judge limits use of tear gas and “chemical munitions” at Portland ICE building

From a story by reporter Maxine Bernstein that appeared Friday, March 6, in the Oregonian/OregonLive:

A judge on Friday ordered federal officers to stop unleashing tear gas that could seep into Gray’s Landing, the low-income apartment complex across the street from Portland’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building, unless they face an imminent deadly threat.

“The Court recognizes a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, but this is an extraordinary case,” U.S. District Judge Amy Baggio wrote in a 57-page opinion.

Baggio found federal officers showed “deliberate indifference” based on the quantity of chemical munitions they have used against those protesting President Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration crackdown as they have gathered outside the ICE field office.

Federal officers have launched the munitions contrary to their own agency’s use-of-force manuals and continued to do so despite complaints of harm from nearby residents, Baggio found.

Her order was short and to the point.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER

Defendants are hereby enjoined as follows pending the final resolution of this case: Defendants, their agents, and all persons acting in concert or participation with Defendants are enjoined from using chemical munitions in quantities such that the aerosolized chemicals discharged from said munitions are likely to reach Gray’s Landing—including the Resident Plaintiffs’ individual apartments. Such use is prohibited unless it is determined to be necessary to address an imminent threat to life.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 6th day of March, 2026.

Unlike her concise order, Judge Battio’s opinion ran for 57 pages in which she reviewed the facts of the situation as presented in an evidentiary hearing lasting several days, and walked step by step through her application of the law.

Government agents showed “deliberate indifference and a ‘protracted failure even to care,’ while acting contrary to their own use of force policies, Judge Baggio found.

Her order applies to the agencies confronting public protests outside the ICE building in Portland, Oregon, including Dept. of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Patrol, and Federal Protective Service, the U.S. Secret Service, and their agency heads.

And the term “chemical munitions” barred from use absent “an imminent threat to life” includes a variety of items defined in the opinion, which took a long section to describe.

Oleoresin capsicum (“OC”‘) is “an oil-based irritant derived from chili peppers, commonly known as pepper spray, in aerosol format.” Officers can deploy OC gas in the form of a handheld spray, such as by using an MK-9 canister or “fogger.” MK-9 canisters can deploy OC up to roughly twelve to twenty feet. OC can also be deployed using a hand-thrown munition, such as a grenade. OC can also be deployed in the form of “breakable ‘pepper balls’ that release OC in a dust format” from a “PepperBall Launching System” (“PLS”). “The immediate impact zone for [a] pepper ball is a 3-6 [foot] radius when deployed at dry hard ground from the PLS.”

Pelargonic acid vanillylamide (“PAVA”) is “[a] synthetic version of OC.” PAVA rounds can affect a fifteen-foot radius where deployed. PAVA can be deployed through an FN 303 launch system (a compressed air launcher) or a PLS with an area of impact ranging from ten to 300 feet.

O-chlorobenzylidene malononitrile (“CS”) is commonly referred to as “tear gas. It is “a class of chemical agent that is a powder at room temperature” that will either “explode” or react with a “pyrotechnic” such that a “gas cloud” forms. FPS does not authorize its officers to use munitions containing CS. CBP and ICE officers, however, do use munitions containing CS. Federal officers have used CS near the Portland ICE Facility in the form of hand-thrown canisters, 40MM rounds deployed from launchers, and grenades. When deployed with a “40 mm” or “Less Lethal Specialty Impact and Chemical Munitions” (‘LLSI-CM”) launcher, CS munitions “can impact up to 450 feet.”

Finally, federal officers have used “stinger” munitions, which may contain “more than none agent” including OC, PAVA, or CS.

The full opinion and order appear below.

An update on Miske’s Millions

My latest update on the legal tug of war over the property of the late racketeering kingpin Michael J. Miske, Jr., was published today at Civil Beat (“Mike Miske Case: Investigation Into Crime Syndicate May Not Be Over Yet“).

Although the government filed a civil forfeiture lawsuit more than a year ago claiming the right to seize a list of more than 20 properties, including real estate, vintage cars, and art, along with more than $4 million in cash and checks, there has been little measurable progress reported.

The only information available concerning off-the-record discussions between the feds and the Miske Trust have been in a series of brief status reports and stipulated agreements filed in the case. Although largely repetitive and pro-forma, there are occasionally bits of interesting information to be gleaned from these documents.

And the most recent court filing, an agreement among the parties to seek another 3-month delay in further court proceedings, offered up a surprise.

From today’s story:

A stipulated agreement between the parties in the asset forfeiture lawsuit states that prosecutors intend to use evidence collected in a previously undisclosed criminal investigation to bolster their legal claim to his properties.

Until then, the Miske-related criminal cases appeared to have effectively ended with the 30-year prison sentence doled out to Lance Bermudez in July, the last of about 18 co-defendants and associates of Miske to be sentenced — although three defendants have appeals of their sentences pending at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

The stipulation, filed in the U.S. District Court in Honolulu on Feb. 5, was signed off on by all current parties to the forfeiture case — the government, the Michael J. Miske Jr. Trust and three lenders holding secured interests in certain of Miske’s properties. In seeking the delay, the parties agreed “these upcoming motions … may affect the status of the civil action and/or discovery.”

It’s the first the public has heard about the existence of a new criminal investigation that has already yielded evidence prosecutors believe will provide further legal support for their attempt to seize the bulk of Miske’s assets.

In any case, check out today’s story in Civil Beat.