9th Circuit rules that federal murder-for-hire law, even when a death results, is not automatically…
United States v. Henrikson
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
9th Circuit rules that federal murder-for-hire law, even when a death results, is not automatically a 'crime of violence,' vacating two more of Henrikson's solicitation convictions.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit held that a violation of the federal murder-for-hire statute (18 U.S.C. Section 1958(a)) resulting in death is not categorically a crime of violence and therefore cannot serve as a predicate offense for federal solicitation charges under 18 U.S.C. Section 373(a). The court reasoned that because the death-results element of the murder-for-hire statute carries no mens rea requirement, a defendant could be convicted under it for an accidental killing, meaning not every violation meets the intentional physical force standard required for a crime of violence. As a result, the court reversed the district court in part and ordered two additional solicitation convictions vacated.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects people convicted of federal solicitation charges where the predicate offense is the murder-for-hire statute, particularly in cases where a death resulted. It also guides federal prosecutors and courts in the Ninth Circuit when charging or reviewing solicitation offenses that rely on Section 1958(a) as the underlying crime of violence.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 15, 2026
Published opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 15, 2026Published opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 15, 2026 · Published opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
James Terry Henrikson was convicted in 2016 on multiple counts related to hiring hit men who murdered two of his business associates and soliciting murders of three others that were never carried out. A jury found him guilty on, among other things, four counts of solicitation to commit a crime of violence under federal law. The legal question in this appeal was whether the federal murder-for-hire statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 1958(a), qualifies as a 'crime of violence' that can serve as the predicate offense for a federal solicitation charge under 18 U.S.C. Section 373(a). The district court had already vacated two of the four solicitation convictions, those based on solicitations that did not result in death, relying on earlier Ninth Circuit precedent holding that the murder-for-hire statute without a resulting death is not categorically a crime of violence. But the district court kept in place the two solicitation convictions tied to solicitations that did lead to actual deaths, reasoning that those violations did qualify as crimes of violence. The Ninth Circuit disagreed with the district court on that second point. Applying what is called the 'modified categorical approach,' the appeals court analyzed whether every possible violation of the murder-for-hire statute that results in death necessarily meets the definition of a crime of violence. The court assumed, without deciding, that the death-results element satisfies the physical force requirement. However, it focused on the mens rea (intent) requirement. The court found that Congress intentionally left out a mens rea requirement for the death-results element of Section 1958(a), meaning a person could technically be convicted under that provision even for an accidental death. Because a crime of violence under Section 373(a) requires intentional conduct, a statute that can be violated without that intent cannot categorically qualify. The court declined to follow reasoning from the Fourth Circuit that had reached a different conclusion on this point. The court also addressed whether it could simply sidestep the question under the 'concurrent sentence doctrine,' which allows courts to skip reviewing a conviction when sentences run concurrently and no extra harm results from the additional conviction. The court chose not to apply that doctrine here, exercising its discretion to decide the merits because doing so would not meaningfully serve the doctrine's goal of judicial economy. The panel reversed the district court's denial of Henrikson's motion as to Counts 7 and 8 and remanded with instructions to vacate those two remaining solicitation convictions.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-2132 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:14-cr-00124- TOR-1 v. JAMES TERRY HENRIKSON, AKA James Henricksen, OPINION Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted April 20, 2026 Seattle, Washington Filed July 15, 2026 Before: M. Margaret McKeown, William A. Fletcher, and Lucy H. Koh, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge W. Fletcher 2 USA V. HENRIKSON SUMMARY * 28 U.S.C. § 2255 The panel (1) affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s partial grant and partial denial of James Terry Henrikson’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his four convictions for solicitation to commit a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 373(a) and 1958(a); and (2) remanded with instructions to vacate Henrikson’s convictions on two counts. The district court vacated Henrikson’s convictions on Counts 9 and 10, based on solicitations that did not result in death, in light of United States v. Linehan, 56 F.4th 693 (9th Cir. 2022), which held that a violation of § 1958(a) without personal injury or death is not categorically a crime of violence. The district court did not vacate the convictions on Counts 7 and 8, which were based on solicitations that did lead to deaths. The concurrent sentence doctrine grants courts the discretion to decline review of a conviction under one count if a conviction under another count is affirmed, the sentences run concurrently, and no adverse collateral legal consequences for the appellant result from the additional conviction. The panel concluded that (1) it need not decide whether the concurrent sentence doctrine applies in collateral review because application of the doctrine is discretionary, and (2) even if the doctrine applies, it would exercise its discretion to consider the merits of this appeal * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. USA V. HENRIKSON 3 because declining to review Henrikson’s claim would not significantly advance the concurrent sentence doctrine’s “only justification” of judicial economy. Applying the modified categorical approach, the panel held that a violation of § 1958(a) resulting in death is not categorically a crime of violence and therefore cannot serve as a predicate offense under § 373(a). The panel assumed without deciding that the death-results element of § 1958(a) satisfies the physical force requirement of § 373(a). The panel held, however, that all violations of § 1958(a) resulting in death do not satisfy the mens rea requirement of § 373(a). Declining to adopt the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning, the panel concluded that Congress intentionally omitted a mens rea requirement in § 1958(a)’s death-results element. Thus, a defendant may be convicted of a violation of § 1958(a) based on an accidental killing. Accordingly, the panel reversed the district court’s denial of Henrikson’s § 2255 motion as to Counts 7 and 8 and remanded with instructions to vacate his convictions on those counts. 4 USA V. HENRIKSON COUNSEL Scott A.C. Meisler (argued), Attorney, Appellate Section, Criminal Division; Matthew R. Galeotti, Acting Assistant Attorney General; United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Ian L. Garriques and David M. Herzog, Assistant United States Attorneys; S. Peter Serrano, United States Attorney; Office of the United States Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Spokane, Washington; for Plaintiff-Appellee. Houston Goddard (argued), Goddard Pope PLLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for Defendant-Appellant. OPINION W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: James Terry Henrikson hired a hit man who murdered two of his business associates. He hired a different hit man to murder three other business associates, but those murders were never carried out. In 2016, a jury convicted Henrikson, inter alia, of four counts of solicitation to commit a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 373(a) and 1958(a). In 2023, Henrikson moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his four solicitation convictions. Henrikson argued that a violation of § 1958(a) is not categorically a crime of violence and therefore cannot serve as a predicate offense under § 373(a). Two of his solicitation convictions were based on acts that did not result in death. Relying on United States v. Linehan, 56 F.4th 693, 707 (9th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 209 (2023), in which we USA V. HENRIKSON 5 held that a violation of § 1958(a) without personal injury or death is not categorically a crime of violence under § 373(a), the district court vacated those convictions. However, the district court declined to vacate the two solicitation convictions that were based on acts resulting in death. The court held that a violation of § 1958(a) resulting in death is categorically a crime of violence and is therefore a predicate offense under § 373(a). Henrikson appeals the district court’s refusal to vacate these two convictions. We hold that a violation of § 1958(a) resulting in death is not categorically a crime of violence and therefore cannot serve as a predicate offense under § 373(a). We therefore remand to the district court with directions to vacate Henrikson’s two remaining solicitation convictions. I. Background From 2011 to 2013, Henrikson operated trucking and oil- drilling businesses in North Dakota. During that period, Henrikson employed a hit man to murder two of his business associates, Kristopher Clarke and Douglas Carlile. After Henrikson learned that Clarke planned to leave Henrikson’s trucking business for a rival company, Henrikson paid Timothy Suckow $20,000 to murder him. Henrikson summoned Clarke to his truck shop, where Suckow was waiting. Henrikson distracted Clarke until Suckow attacked him with a tire jack. A year later, Henrikson offered another $20,000 to Suckow to murder his co-investor Carlile. Suckow shot Carlile six times inside his home. Henrikson also hired a different hit man to murder three other associates, but those murders never occurred. In 2016, a jury convicted Henrikson on eleven counts. He was convicted on two counts of using interstate commerce facilities in the commission of a murder-for-hire 6 USA V. HENRIKSON in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a) (Counts 1 and 2); four counts of conspiracy to use interstate commerce facilities in the commission of a murder-for-hire in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a) (Counts 3, 4, 5, and 6); four counts of solicitation to use interstate commerce facilities in the commission of a murder-for-hire under 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 373(a) (Counts 7, 8, 9, and 10), and one count of conspiracy to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 (Count 11). The district court imposed a complicated sentence. It sentenced Henrikson to three terms of life imprisonment on Counts 1, 2, and 3. The life terms for Counts 2 and 3 run concurrently with each other but consecutively with the life term on Count 1. It sentenced him to three 10-year terms on Counts 4, 5, and 6, running concurrently with each other but consecutive to the life sentences on Counts 1 through 3. It sentenced him to two 20 yea
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.