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

Defendant appealed his conviction of two counts of securities fraud, arguing that he was prejudiced by the trial court's improper admission of a prior civil complaint filed by the SEC against him. The court agreed and vacated defendant's conviction, remanding for a new trial. View "United States v. Bailey" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's imposition of ten concurrent life sentences for his convictions for ten counts of transportation of illegal aliens resulting in their deaths. Defendant was fleeing from Border Patrol while driving a Chevy Suburban carrying twenty undocumented immigrants. The vehicle evaded a spike strip but the sudden shift in weight caused it to roll over and many passengers were thrown from the vehicle, and ten passengers died. In a prior appeal, the court affirmed defendant's convictions but remanded for resentencing. On remand, the district court imposed the life sentences. Because the district court clearly erred when finding that defendant acted with malice aforethought, the court vacated the life sentences and remanded for a new sentencing proceeding, in which the district court would not apply the U.S.S.G. 2L1(c) cross-reference. View "United States v. Pineda-Doval" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the denial of his habeas petition, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner challenged only his capital sentence and did not challenge his underlying felony murder conviction, arising from his role in a car-jacking. Petitioner argued that his counsel was ineffective at sentencing because she failed to focus on petitioner's drug addiction (rather than on intoxication), enlisted an unqualified expert, and failed to investigate petitioner's social history thoroughly. The court held that petitioner's counsel adopted a permissible sentencing strategy and that petitioner's arguments amounted to little more than a contention that his counsel should have adopted a different strategy. Under Strickland v. Washington, such arguments failed, and Martinez v. Ryan did not compel a different result. View "Miles v. Ryan" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a group of municipal and federal government entities, which sold electricity in the affected markets at issue but who were outside of FERC's refund jurisdiction, appealed FERC's order of refunds for electricity rates that were above what FERC determined to be the just and reasonable rate. The court did not agree with FERC's assertion that it had broad authority under section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e, to retroactively reset rates that were charged in the California electricity markets during the time in question. Nonetheless, the court concluded that the specific FERC Orders that were challenged in the current petitions for review did not exceed the limits on FERC's authority. Consequently, the court denied the petitions. View "Modesto Irrigation District, et al. v. FERC" on Justia Law

CTTA filed this action seeking to invalidate two ordinances where the City and County of San Francisco required tow truck drivers to obtain permits to operate in San Francisco and towing firms to obtain permits to conduct business within San Francisco. CTTA primarily argued that the entire "permit scheme" (as it called both ordinances) was preempted by federal law. The district court upheld the permit scheme for "non-consensual" towing, but enjoined enforcement against those doing exclusively "consensual" towing and against tow truck drivers simply "passing through" San Francisco. Both parties cross-appealed. The CTTA's challenge to the entire permit scheme necessarily encompassed all of the permit scheme's components - each of which could be preempted. The district court analyzed the permit scheme in a way the parties presented the scheme, as a whole, but without specifically addressing its individual provisions. In doing so, however, the district court ran afoul of American Trucking Associations v. City of Los Angeles, which required "examining the specific provisions" of the permit scheme. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "California Tow Truck Assoc. v. City and County of San Francisco" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Mexican national, sought review of 8 C.F.R. 208.31, arguing that the regulation was unlawful because it precluded him from applying for asylum. The Government sought to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was still considering whether petitioner had a reasonable fear of persecution, which could permit him to apply for withholding of removal. The court held that because DHS had not completed all proceedings pursuant to section 208.31 that would determine whether or not plaintiff would be removed, the court lacked jurisdiction to review the petition. View "Ortiz-Alfaro v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought review of the SSA's denial of his application for social security disability benefits. The federal magistrate judge who presided over plaintiff's action determined that the agency's decision improperly disregarded the opinions of an examining psychologist and remanded to the agency. Plaintiff sought reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. 2412(d). The magistrate judge granted the request in part but determined that the 60.5 hours plaintiff's attorneys spent working on the case were excessive and subsequently reduced the number of hours by nearly one-third. The court held that it was improper for district courts to apply a de facto cap on the number of hours for which attorneys could be compensated under the EAJA in a "routine" case challenging the denial of social security benefits. Rather individualized consideration must be given to each case. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Costa v. Commissioner of Social Security Admin." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitioned for review from an order by the BIA affirming an order of removal by the IJ. The IJ found petitioner removeable for having been convicted of possession of a controlled substance in violation of California Health & Safety Code 11377(a). The court held that the record was clear that petitioner pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine, a controlled substance offense that supported the order of removal. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Cabantac v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

H.B. appealed his adjudication as a juvenile delinquent for aiding and abetting his cousin in committing aggravated sexual abuse against their female friend on an Indian reservation. The court held that a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of H.B.'s charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also held that the sentence imposed was reasonable. Accordingly, the court confirmed the conviction and judgment. View "United States v. H.B., Juvenile Male" on Justia Law

In this case, the court evaluated on federal habeas review the Washington Supreme Court's decision to apply harmless error review over structural error analysis where the trial court prohibited defense counsel from arguing during closing argument both that the State failed to meet its burden of proof establishing accomplice liability and that a criminal defendant acted under duress. The court held that the Washington Supreme Court's decision was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Frost v. Van Boening" on Justia Law