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

Defendant, twelve years old at the time of the offense, appealed his conviction for sexually abusing his six year old cousin. The court concluded that the certification that the government filed in the district court met the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 5032 by certifying that "the juvenile court or the state does not have jurisdiction over the juvenile with respect to the alleged act of juvenile delinquency," even though it was missing a page and did not include a statement of the government's substantial federal interest in this case. Guided by the United States v. Kim factors, considering the totality of the circumstances of defendant's detention, and taking into account defendant's status as a juvenile, the court concluded that a reasonable person in defendant's position would not have felt free to terminate the questioning and leave the police station. Therefore, defendant was "in custody" during his interrogation by the detective. Defendant was never read his Miranda rights and his inculpatory statements during his interrogation by the detective must be suppressed. Defendant's younger brother, who was seven at the time of trial and five at the time of the offense, was competent to testify as a witness. The evidence at trial, including defendant's inculpatory statements, was not insufficient to support the conviction. The court reversed and remanded, however, because the inculpatory statements were obtained in violation of defendant's Miranda rights and should have been suppressed. View "United States v. IMM" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and California law after police officers shot and killed Kamal Lal. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Lal lead police on a high speed chase for 45 minutes before the officers were able to disable his vehicle. In the four minutes that elapsed after Lal exited the truck, he first tried to seriously injure himself, tried to provoke the officers into shooting him, threw rocks at the officers, and then, ignoring instructions to stop, advanced upon the officers threatening them with a football-sized rock he held over his head. Under the totality of the circumstances, the district court's determinations that the officers objectively feared immediate serious physical harm and that a reasonable officer could have believed that Lal threatened him with immediate serious danger were sound. That Lal may have been intent on committing "suicide by cop" did not negate the fact that he threatened the officers with such immediate serious harm that shooting him was a reasonable response. According, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Lal v. California" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, challenged the reinstatement of his removal order under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, div. C., 110 Stat. 3009-546. Petitioner argued that the Act cannot retroactively eliminate his right to renew his application for relief from reinstatement. The court rejected petitioner's argument because he did nothing before the Act's effective date ten years later. Although petitioner's initial application for adjustment of status was denied on the merits in 1987, he did nothing to renew his application during the decade that passed before the Act would become effective. Accordingly, the court denied the petition where petitioner had no vested right. View "Ortega v. Holder" on Justia Law

After Reno's financing collapsed, Reno initiated an arbitration before FINRA to resolve its claims against Goldman arising out of their contractual relationship. Goldman then filed this action to enjoin the FINRA arbitration. The court concluded that it, rather than FINRA, must determine the arbitrability of this dispute. Although Reno qualified as Goldman's customer under FINRA Rule 12200, the court held that Reno disclaimed its right to FINRA arbitration by agreeing to the forum selection clauses in the parties' contracts. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction and final judgment in favor of Reno. Despite Goldman's "overwhelming likelihood of success on the merits," the court remanded to the district court to consider the remaining Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. factors. View "Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. City of Reno" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possessing an unregistered machine gun and sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment. On appeal, the government conceded that the district court miscalculated defendant's base offense level. The court vacated and remanded for resentencing, holding that the district court also erred in applying a six-level enhancement for multiple firearms under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(1)(C) on the basis of other weapons found at defendant's home. View "United States v. Vargem" on Justia Law

Defendants Guillen-Cervantes and Castillo were convicted of conspiring to transport and harbor illegal aliens. On appeal, Castillo challenged her forfeiture judgment, contending that it violated her due process rights under the Fifth Amendment because she was unable to seek contribution from other members of the conspiracy. The court held that Castillo possessed no right to contribution under existing federal law. The court rejected Castillo's request that the court find an implied right under 18 U.S.C. 982 or forge a new right to contribution in this case, and to hold that the deprivation of that right as a consequence of her forfeiture order violated her Fifth Amendment guarantee to due process. Therefore, the court concluded that Castillo's due process claim failed because she could not demonstrate a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest of which she has been deprived. Accordingly, the court affirmed the forfeiture judgment against Castillo. View "United States v. Guillen-Cervantes" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against JAL, alleging that JAL retaliated against him for reporting safety concerns and constructively terminated him for reasons related to his medical and mental fitness. At issue on appeal was whether the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (FAA), 49 U.S.C. 40103 et seq., preempted plaintiff's state law claims. The court concluded that the FAA and accompanying regulations preempted plaintiff's retaliation and constructive termination claims. The court held that federal law preempted state law claims that encroached upon, supplemented, or altered the federally occupied field of aviation safety and presented an obstacle to the accomplishment of Congress's legislative goal to create a single, uniform, system of regulating that field. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration where he conceded that the conduct giving rise to his claims occurred in U.S. airspace. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of JAL. View "Ventress v. Japan Airlines" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of felony murder and other offenses, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The court concluded that the state trial court's decision to credit the prosecutor's race-neutral explanation for striking an African-American venireman, when viewed in light of the totality of the relevant facts, was not an objectively unreasonable application of Batson v. Kentucky. The court also concluded that the state trial court's decision to admit a codefendant's hearsay statement was not an objectively unreasonable application of the Ohio v. Roberts framework. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Mayes v. Premo" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Wells Fargo, raising multiple causes of action under state and federal law pertaining to plaintiffs' home loan and deed of trust. At issue was whether, under 28 U.S.C. 1348, a national bank is a citizen of both the state in which its principal place of business is located as designated in the banks' articles of association. The court concluded that, under section 1348, a national bank is a citizen only of the state in which its main office is located. Therefore, the district court had diversity jurisdiction because there was complete diversity between plaintiffs, citizens of California, and Wells Fargo, a citizen of South Dakota. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment to the contrary and remanded for further proceedings. View "Rouse, et al. v. Wachovia Mortgage" on Justia Law

The USDA decided to change its rules to allow roads to be built through an Alaskan forest it had previously ruled should be roadless. The district court held invalid the 2003 Record of Decision (ROD) that temporarily exempted the Tongass National Forest from application of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Alaska appealed the order. The court concluded that the USDA's actions in settling the lawsuit and its reasoned explanation in the ROD supported the finding that the USDA believed that promulgating the Tongass exception would decrease litigation over the Roadless Rule. Under FCC v. Fox Television Stations' deferential standard, the USDA's ROD was not arbitrary and capricious. Further, it was not arbitrary and capricious for the USDA to promulgate the Roadless Rule exception to increase timber production to meet predicted future demand. Another reason for the USDA's promulgation of the ROD was because of its appreciation of the socioeconomic hardships created by the Roadless Rule. The court held that all of the USDA's reasons were acceptable under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 701-706. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Organized Village of Kake v. USDA" on Justia Law