Justia U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Articles Posted in June, 2012
by
In this criminal pre-trial matter, a magistrate judge recommended denying a motion to suppress, but the district judge reversed that determination because he was inclined to disbelieve the testimony of government officials but did so without holding a de novo evidentiary hearing to hear any live testimony. At issue on appeal was whether the government's right to a de novo hearing before a district judge when the district judge departs from credibility findings of a magistrate judge is identical to that of defendants, even though the government cannot directly invoke the protections of the Due Process Clause. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court, holding that a district court abuses its discretion when it reverses a magistrate judge's credibility determinations, made after receiving testimony that is live and favorable to the government, without viewing key demeanor evidence, except where the district judge finds the magistrate judge's credibility determinations had no legally sufficient evidentiary basis, so that, were they jury determinations, judgment as a matter of law would issue for the defendant. View "United States v. Thoms" on Justia Law

by
Defendant CB&I Constructors, Inc. negligently caused a June 2002 wildfire that burned roughly 18,000 acres of the Angeles National Forest in Southern California. The United States brought a civil action against CB&I to recover damages for harm caused by the fire. The jury found CB&I liable and awarded roughly $7.6 million in fire suppression, emergency mitigation, and resource protection costs, and $28.8 million in intangible environmental damages. CB&I challenged the award for environmental damages. The district court held that the government provided sufficient evidence for the jury to determine the amount of environmental damages, and that the resulting award was not grossly excessive. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) under California law, the government was entitled to full compensation for all the harms caused by the fire, including intangible environment harm; and (2) substantial evidence supported the jury's determination of the amount of environmental damages, and the award was not grossly excessive. View "United States v. CB&I Constructors, Inc." on Justia Law

by
Petitioner petitioned for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a). The BIA held that Petitioner did not demonstrate that he met the seven-year continuous residence requirement. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the petition, holding that the years of residence of Petitioner's mother were imputed to him based on Cuevas-Gaspar v. Gonzales and Mercado-Zazueta v. Holder. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed. On remand, the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding (1) because Cuevas-Gaspar and Mercado-Zuzueta were no longer valid precedent, Petitioner's imputation argument concerning his mother's residence was without merit; and (2) the BIA correctly determined that Petitioner's 2002 conviction terminated his continuous residence. View "Sawyers v. Holder" on Justia Law

by
Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, was convicted of armed robbery with a firearm in California in 1981. After serving most of his sentence, Rivera was deported in 1984. Since then, Petitioner twice reentered the country without inspection. The government began a removal proceeding against Rivera in 2004. Rivera admitted removability and sought adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident, Because his 1981 conviction rendered him inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), Rivera applied for a waiver of inadmissibility under section 1182(h)(1)(A) and (B). The immigration judge denied Rivera's application for wavier of inadmissibility. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, concluding that Rivera failed to satisfy the hardship standard of 8 C.F.R. 1212.7(d). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed and denied the application, holding that the BIA properly applied section 1212.7(d) to Rivera. View "Rivera-Peraza v. Holder" on Justia Law

by
Bao Tai Nian (Bao), a native and citizen of China, petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Bao arrived in the United States as an alien crew member. His asylum proceeding was thus limited in scope to a so-called "asylum-only" proceeding. The Immigration Judge (IJ) and BIA did not issue a final order of removal, and thus the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was presented with the question of whether the BIA's denial of asylum in "asylum-only" proceedings was the equivalent of a final order of removal such that the Court had jurisdiction. The Court held that denial of an alien crew member's petition for asylum and other relief in "asylum-only" proceedings was the functional equivalent of a final order a removal, and thus, the Court had jurisdiction to review Bao's petition from the BIA's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. The Court then denied Bao's petition for review in a separate memorandum disposition. View "Nian v. Holder" on Justia Law

by
At issue in this case was the appropriate venue for continuing crimes, like conspiracy, where the conspirators' activities have a ripple-like effect that may involve numerous districts. Here the district court determined that venue for a drug-sale conspiracy was proper in the North District of California based on two telephone calls initiated by a government informant, who was in the district, to Defendant, who was located outside of the district. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) by using those calls to negotiate the terms of a drug deal to be completed in the Eastern District of California, Defendant propelled the conspiracy into the Northern District of California; and (2) therefore, venue on the conspiracy charge was proper in the Northern District of California. View "United States v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

by
Rene Lopez-Rodriguez, a Mexican citizen, was paroled into the United States to face immigration and criminal charges following his initial detention at a port of entry when marijuana was discovered in a truck he was driving. No criminal charges were filed against Lopez-Rodriguez, but he was later charged with being ineligible for admission because there was "reason to believe" he was or had been an illicit trafficker of a controlled substance. After a hearing before an immigration judge (IJ), the IJ found (1) there was "no reason to believe" that Lopez-Rodriguez was an elicit trafficker in a controlled substance, and (2) Lopez-Rodriguez was admissible. The Board of Immigration Appeals reversed, concluding that the IJ's decision to admit Lopez-Rodriguez was clearly erroneous. Lopez-Rodriguez petitioned for review. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the petition, holding that the Board committed legal error by making its own factual determination and engaging in de novo review of the IJ's factual findings. Remanded for further proceedings. View "Rodriguez v. Holder" on Justia Law

by
Appellants filed suit against Rearden Commerce, asserting numerous claims related to a conflict between the parties' marks and names. The district court granted Rearden Commerce's motion for summary judgment as to Appellants' trademark-related claims. Specifically, the district court found Rearden Commerce was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Appellants' claims of false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, violations of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, common law trademark infringement, and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed, which precluded summary judgment in favor of Rearden Commerce. Remanded for further proceedings. View "Rearden LLC v. Rearden Commerce, Inc." on Justia Law

by
Plaintiff Paul Braunstein, the owner and operator of an Arizona engineering and land surveying firm that previously performed work for the Arizona Department of Transportation, sought damages based on Arizona's use of an affirmative action program in its award of a 2005 transportation engineering contract. The district court concluded that Braunstein lacked standing to seek damages in this equal protection suit because he never demonstrated that the challenged affirmative action program affected him personally or impeded his ability to compete for subcontracting work. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court correctly concluded that Braunstein lacked standing; but (2) the district court erred in awarding Defendants attorneys' fees and imposing sanctions against Braunstein's attorneys for unreasonably prolonging the proceedings. View "Braunstein v. Ariz. Dep't of Transp." on Justia Law

by
Appellants, three individuals who participated in businesses that helped customers evade federal and state income taxes, were convicted for conspiracy to defraud the United States, mail fraud, false representation of a Social Security number, passport fraud, and failure to file income tax returns. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences for all Appellants with the exception of one Appellant (Giordano)'s restitution order, which was vacated and remanded for recalculation, holding (1) Appellants' convictions did not violate the First Amendment, as Appellants did far more than advocate tax evasion and instead developed a vast enterprise that helped clients hide their income from federal and state tax authorities; (2) the indictment did not erroneously include misdemeanor crimes among the eighty-one objects of the felony conspiracy count; (3) the district court did not err in instructing the jury on the crime of failure to file income taxes; but (4) the district court failed to consider evidence that Giordano presented at sentencing. View "United States v. Meredith" on Justia Law