From Bellingham to Vancouver, every federal prosecution on Washington’s west side lands in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington — the Seattle-based court where the government brings some of the nation’s most prominent cybercrime, fraud, and money-laundering cases. Its rules, its judges, and its sentencing patterns are distinct, and a defense built for state court will not translate here.
What follows is a defense lawyer’s map of the Western District of Washington: the Seattle and Tacoma courthouses, the bench, the prosecutors and their tech-inflected docket, the sentencing data, and the way we litigate here. Nationwide federal defense — trial, appeal, and post-conviction — is what Elizabeth Franklin-Best, P.C. does, and we enter this district’s cases pro hac vice. The Best Lawyers in America 2026 lists Elizabeth Franklin-Best as a “Best Lawyer” for Appellate Practice, and she carries a Chambers USA 2026 ranking in Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations. You will find this page in our federal courts directory.
If a federal agent has knocked, a subpoena has issued, or an indictment has been returned in Seattle or Tacoma, our paid, one-hour initial consultation gives you a working assessment of the case and a plan for what comes next.
Table of Contents
Quick Answer: Western District of Washington
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| What does the Western District of Washington cover? | Nineteen counties west of the Cascades under 28 U.S.C. § 128(b) — the Seattle metro, Tacoma, and the whole Puget Sound corridor — with staffed courthouses in Seattle and Tacoma. |
| How large is the bench? | Seven district judgeships, led as of mid-2026 by Chief Judge David G. Estudillo, plus ten senior district judges and six magistrate judges. |
| Who prosecutes federal cases there? | The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington, led as of mid-2026 by First Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles Neil Floyd in the absence of a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney. |
| What makes the docket distinctive? | Fraud at nearly twice the national share, an outsized money-laundering caseload, and a national-profile cybercrime practice rooted in Seattle’s tech economy. |
| Which circuit hears appeals? | Appeals run to the Ninth Circuit; Section 2255 motions are filed back in this district before the sentencing court. |
| Can the firm appear in this court? | Yes — Local Civil Rule 83.1(d) admits out-of-state counsel pro hac vice once local counsel is secured, and our representation begins with a paid, one-hour initial consultation. |
Key Takeaways
- The district takes in the nineteen counties west of the Cascades; its working courthouses are Seattle and Tacoma, though 28 U.S.C. § 128(b) also designates Bellingham, Mount Vernon, and Vancouver as places of holding court.
- Seven district judgeships anchor the court — Chief Judge David G. Estudillo as of mid-2026 — supported by one of the deepest senior benches in the circuit and six magistrate judges.
- Fraud, theft, and embezzlement made up 16.4% of the district’s FY2024 sentencings, almost double the national share, with money laundering at more than twice the national rate.
- Cybercrime is a signature: prosecutions here produced the landmark 27-year hacking sentence in the Seleznev case and the Capital One data-breach case against a former Seattle tech worker.
- Fentanyl drove 45.5% of the district’s FY2024 drug cases — double the national figure — alongside methamphetamine at 46.5%.
- Judges here went below the Guidelines range by variance in 61.5% of FY2024 cases, while substantial-assistance departures were rare at 1.9%.
- The Ninth Circuit hears the direct appeal — the criminal notice of appeal generally must be filed within 14 days of judgment — and Section 2255 motions return to this district.
- We litigate Western District of Washington cases pro hac vice under Local Civil Rule 83.1(d), pairing with Washington local counsel.
The Western District of Washington at a Glance
Section 128(b) of Title 28 draws this district’s boundaries around nineteen counties west of the Cascades — King, Pierce, Snohomish, Whatcom, Clark, and the rest of the Puget Sound and coastal corridor. Congress has designated five places of holding court (Bellingham, Seattle, Tacoma, Mount Vernon, and Vancouver — Mount Vernon was added by statute in 2024), but the court’s staffed courthouses are two: the Seattle courthouse, which carries the larger calendar, and the Tacoma courthouse, which serves the South Sound.
Seven district judgeships serve the district under 28 U.S.C. § 133. As of mid-2026, Chief Judge David G. Estudillo leads an active bench that includes Judges Tana Lin, Lauren King, John H. Chun, Jamal N. Whitehead, Tiffany M. Cartwright, and Kymberly K. Evanson, according to the court’s roster — and the senior bench is remarkably deep, with ten senior district judges continuing to hear cases. Six magistrate judges handle initial appearances, detention, and referred matters. Appellate jurisdiction lies with the Ninth Circuit.
Alongside the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the court enforces local rules with real teeth — Local Civil Rule 83.1 governs who may appear and how, the district maintains its own magistrate-judge rules, and judges publish individual chambers procedures. Counsel who track those details spare clients the unforced errors that complicate federal cases.
Federal Criminal Cases in the District
The mix here tilts toward the white-collar side of the federal code: fraud schemes that ride the region’s tech and finance economy, money laundering through banks and cryptocurrency, white-collar investigations of executives and businesses, and a steady stream of drug and port- and border-related prosecutions. The procedural spine of every one of these cases is the same.
It usually starts quietly — an FBI or Secret Service inquiry, a target letter, a grand jury subpoena for records. An indictment follows, then the initial appearance and arraignment at the Seattle or Tacoma courthouse. From there the case is shaped by discovery — often enormous in this district’s digital-evidence cases — and pretrial motions, before resolving by plea agreement or trial and, on conviction, sentencing. Each stage is mapped in our federal criminal process hub.
Across that spine, our work is granular: contesting how agents obtained devices and data, challenging loss figures and forensic conclusions, holding the government to each element of fraud and computer-crime statutes, and positioning every client for either the strongest possible resolution or a triable case.
Applied Insight: Digital-evidence cases are won or lost in the forensics. In this district’s hacking, crypto, and fraud prosecutions, the government’s case often rests on logs, blockchain tracing, and seized devices — and an early defense review of that evidence, before charging decisions harden, can narrow counts, undercut loss theories, or end an investigation altogether.
A Fraud-Heavy, Tech-Inflected Docket
The Sentencing Commission’s FY2024 packet shows how different this district is from its neighbors. Of 317 individuals sentenced, fraud, theft, and embezzlement accounted for 16.4% — nearly twice the 8.6% national share — and money laundering ran at 4.4%, more than double the national rate. Firearms cases, by contrast, sat at just 6.9%, about half the national figure. Drug trafficking filled 31.2% of the docket, with fentanyl the primary drug in 45.5% of drug cases — twice its national share — and methamphetamine in another 46.5%, much of it moving through the I-5 corridor, the ports, and the northern border.
Recent charging activity matches the numbers: in a single June 2026 week, the office announced wire-fraud and aggravated-identity-theft indictments built on debit- and gift-card schemes, a multimillion-dollar “psychic fraud” indictment, and a five-year sentence for a Newcastle man who funneled overseas fraud proceeds through money transfers and bitcoin. Cryptocurrency now appears in this district’s money-laundering cases as routinely as cash once did.
The Supreme Court has been trimming the edges of the government’s fraud theories, and we put those decisions to work. Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U.S. 306 (2023), struck down the “right to control” theory, requiring proof that traditional property was the object of the scheme; Dubin v. United States, 599 U.S. 110 (2023), held that aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A applies only when the misuse of another’s identity is at the crux of the offense — a critical check on a charge that otherwise adds a mandatory two-year consecutive sentence to garden-variety fraud counts.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office: Cybercrime and Beyond
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington states its priorities plainly: cybercrime and computer hacking, stopping the flow of fentanyl, combating gun violence, and protecting children and the elderly. As of mid-2026 the district has no Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney: Charles Neil Floyd was sworn in as interim U.S. Attorney in October 2025 and, per the Justice Department, was appointed First Assistant U.S. Attorney on February 2, 2026, in which capacity he leads an office of roughly 85 prosecutors. The district’s judges have separately invoked 28 U.S.C. § 546(d) and convened a merit-selection panel to name a court-appointed U.S. Attorney if the vacancy persists.
The cyber docket is where this district made its national name. Seattle prosecutors secured the 27-year sentence imposed in 2017 on Roman Seleznev, the Russian hacker behind a sprawling point-of-sale credit-card theft operation — one of the longest hacking sentences ever imposed in the United States. They also brought the Capital One data-breach case against Paige Thompson, a former Seattle tech-company software engineer charged with computer fraud and abuse over one of the largest bank-data intrusions on record. When Seattle’s tech economy generates a case, this is the courthouse it lands in.
Computer-crime charges have firm legal limits. In Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. 374 (2021), the Supreme Court held that a person “exceeds authorized access” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act only by entering parts of a system that are off-limits — not by misusing information they were allowed to access. For employees, contractors, and researchers accused of crossing digital lines, Van Buren is often the first question in the case, and we litigate it.
Sentencing Patterns in Seattle and Tacoma
The district’s FY2024 sentencing profile rewards advocacy. Judges imposed within-Guidelines sentences in 34.7% of cases and went below the range by variance in a remarkable 61.5% — among the highest below-range rates in the federal system. Substantial-assistance departures, at 1.9%, were almost a non-factor (the national rate is 9.9%), which means the path to a lower sentence here usually runs through the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors rather than cooperation credit.
That matters most in fraud cases, where the Guidelines loss table can drive advisory ranges far beyond what the conduct warrants. A bench this willing to vary expects — and responds to — serious mitigation: who the client is, what actually caused the loss, and what sentence the statutory purposes truly require. With 96.2% of FY2024 cases resolving by plea, that sentencing presentation is very often the decisive contest of the case.
Appeals and Post-Conviction Matters
Every judgment entered in Seattle or Tacoma carries appellate rights to the Ninth Circuit — but they expire fast. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b), the defendant’s notice of appeal is ordinarily due within 14 days after entry of judgment, and in complex fraud and computer-crime cases the issues worth appealing (evidentiary rulings, loss findings, jury instructions on intent) need to be identified and preserved long before that clock ever starts.
When the direct appeal ends, collateral review begins in the court of conviction: a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion attacking a Western District of Washington judgment is filed in this district. The deadline is unforgiving — one year, and under Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522 (2003), the conviction becomes final for that purpose when the time to seek Supreme Court review expires. Our federal post-conviction relief practice builds these motions, and we litigate compassionate release for clients sentenced here as well — a route with notably favorable odds in this circuit, where the Sentencing Commission reported the nation’s highest compassionate-release grant rate, roughly 31.0%, in FY2025 against a 14.1% national average. This appellate and collateral work is our firm’s center of gravity, and it is fully portable to Washington because the governing law is federal everywhere.
How the Firm Practices in This Court
This district spells out its admission path clearly: under Local Civil Rule 83.1(d), an out-of-state attorney appearing pro hac vice must first obtain local counsel, then submit the court’s application with local counsel’s statement. We treat that requirement as an asset — our Western District of Washington engagements team our federal practice with a Washington-barred lawyer who knows the building, the clerks, and the judges’ preferences.
Cross-district representation is the norm, not the exception, in serious federal cases. The statutes, the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the Sentencing Guidelines do not change at the King County line, and defendants facing the government’s most experienced cyber and fraud prosecutors are entitled to match them with counsel chosen for depth rather than zip code.
Our principal attorney, Elizabeth Franklin-Best, has handled more than 330 federal proceedings, including over 100 federal appeals, and her admissions span the U.S. Supreme Court and all twelve federal circuits, the Ninth among them. She appears pro hac vice nationwide, from Montana to Florida, and is the author of Reversing Your Criminal Conviction. For Western District of Washington clients, that translates into representation that is built from the start with the appeal and any collateral challenge in mind — trial defense, direct appeal, and post-conviction litigation handled as one continuous strategy.
Frequently Asked Questions
What area does the Western District of Washington cover?
The nineteen Washington counties west of the Cascades, from Whatcom County at the Canadian border down to Clark County across from Portland — including Seattle, Tacoma, and the entire Puget Sound region. Court is staffed in Seattle and Tacoma.
Who prosecutes federal crimes in the Western District of Washington?
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington, based in Seattle. As of mid-2026 no Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney is in place; First Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles Neil Floyd leads the office, whose stated priorities include cybercrime, fentanyl, and gun violence.
Which appeals court covers the Western District of Washington?
Convictions from Seattle and Tacoma are reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A criminal defendant generally has 14 days from entry of judgment to file the notice of appeal, which makes immediate post-sentencing action essential.
How does a federal criminal case proceed in the Western District of Washington?
From investigation to indictment, arraignment, discovery, motions, and then plea or trial and sentencing. The district’s digital-evidence caseload means discovery can be massive; in FY2024, 96.2% of its cases resolved by guilty plea after that pretrial work.
Can an out-of-state lawyer represent me in the Western District of Washington?
Yes. Local Civil Rule 83.1(d) admits out-of-state attorneys pro hac vice for a particular case once they have obtained local counsel and filed the court’s application. Defendants regularly retain national federal-defense counsel this way.
Does the firm handle federal cases in the Western District of Washington?
Yes — trial-level defense, Ninth Circuit appeals, and post-conviction litigation including Section 2255 motions and compassionate release. We appear pro hac vice alongside Washington local counsel, and matters begin with a paid, one-hour initial consultation.
What kinds of federal cases dominate in Seattle’s federal court?
Fraud, theft, and embezzlement made up 16.4% of FY2024 sentencings — almost double the national share — with money laundering also well above the national rate. Drug cases, driven nearly equally by fentanyl and methamphetamine, and cybercrime prosecutions round out the district’s signature docket.
Why is the Western District of Washington known for cybercrime cases?
Seattle’s tech economy makes the district a natural venue for hacking and data-breach prosecutions, and its U.S. Attorney’s Office names cybercrime among its priorities. The 27-year Seleznev hacking sentence and the Capital One data-breach prosecution of a former Seattle software engineer both came out of this court.
How do Western District of Washington judges sentence compared to the Guidelines?
In FY2024 they sentenced below the Guidelines range by variance in 61.5% of cases — among the highest rates in the country — while within-range sentences came in at 34.7%. Substantial-assistance departures were rare at 1.9%, so well-developed mitigation under § 3553(a) is usually the decisive lever.
Start the Conversation About Your Seattle or Tacoma Federal Case
Cyber and fraud prosecutions in this district move quickly once charges are filed, and the most valuable defense decisions are made early. Schedule a paid, one-hour initial consultation and we will walk through the evidence posture, the deadlines, and the realistic paths — whether the matter is pre-indictment, post-verdict, or years past sentencing.