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

Defendant appealed his conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326 and his sentence. The court held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment; the district court properly determined that defendant's 2007 conviction for possession of methamphetamine for sale under Cal. Health & Safety Code 11378 was a drug trafficking offense under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A); and the district court's imposition of supervised release was reasonable. View "United States v. Valdavinos-Torres" on Justia Law

In this case, Metro disputed the determination of a deficiency by the Commissioner based on Metro's use of net operating losses (NOLs) accumulated in 2003 and 2004 to completely offset its 2002 taxable income. The court held that the plain meaning of the term "carryovers" prevented taxpayers from using NOLs that were carried back to 2001 or to 2002 from a later tax year to take advantage of section 56 of the Internal Revenue Code (the Relief Rule), which permitted taxpayers subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax to offset up to 100% of their taxable income with NOLs. Therefore, the court affirmed the Tax Court's assessment of a deficiency, because Metro could not take advantage of the Relief Rule with NOLs it carried back from the 2003 and 2004 tax years to 2002. View "Metro One Telecommunications, v. CIR" on Justia Law

Defendant, a native and citizen of Mexico, appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss an illegal reentry charge after deportation. Defendant claimed that the IJ failed to advise him about the availability of voluntary departure. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that an alien could not collaterally attack his removal order by claiming that an immigration judge failed to advise him about relief for which he was statutorily ineligible, even if the government did not introduce before the IJ noticeable documentation of the aggravated felony conviction that rendered him ineligible. The court also held that defendant's sentence was valid. View "United States v. Bustos-Ochoa" on Justia Law

Washington Shoe brought suit against A-Z for, among other things, copyright infringement. At issue was whether A-Z, an Arkansas retailer, was subject to personal jurisdiction in Washington. The district court dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court held that Washington Shoe presented evidence that A-Z engaged in intentional acts that willfully infringed its copyright, knowing that it would adversely impact Washington Shoe in the state of Washington, and knew or should have known both about the existence of the copyright and the forum. Thus, A-Z's intentional acts were expressly aimed at Washington Shoe in Washington and the harm was felt in Washington. The district court therefore erred in dismissing the action. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Washington Shoe Co. v. A-Z Sporting Goods Inc." on Justia Law

In the four cases giving rise to these eleven consolidated appeals, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Director of the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), appealed the district court's grant of preliminary injunctions to plaintiffs, various providers and beneficiaries of California's Medicaid program (Medi-Cal). At issue was the implementation of Medi-Cal reimbursement rate reductions. The court held that Orthopaedic Hospital v. Belshe did not control the outcome in these cases because it did not consider the key issue here - the Secretary's interpretation of 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(30)(A); the Secretary's approval of California's requested reimbursement rates were entitled to Chevron deference; and the Secretary's approval complied with the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq. The court further held that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits on their Supremacy Clause claims against the Director because the Secretary had reasonably determined that the State's reimbursement rates complied with section 30(A). The court finally held that none of the plaintiffs had a viable takings claim because Medicaid, as a voluntary program, did not create property rights. View "Managed Pharmacy Care, et al v. Sebelius, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs alleged that defendant, the servicer of their home loan, violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. 2605, because it did not respond adequately to three letters in which they challenged the monthly payment due on their loan. The district court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the claim because a servicer must receive a valid "qualified written request" to incur the duty to respond under section 2605, and it determined that the letters were not qualified written requests that triggered the statutory duty. Because plaintiffs' letters to defendant challenged the terms of their loans and requested modification of various loan and mortgage documents, they were not qualified written requests relating to the servicing of plaintiffs' loan. Because section 2605 did not require a servicer to respond to such requests, the district court correctly dismissed plaintiffs' claim and the court affirmed the judgment. View "Medrano, et al v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus challenging his California conviction of second degree murder. The district court denied the petition but the court raised a certificate of appealability regarding whether there was a sufficient factual basis to support petitioner's no contest plea and whether his plea was knowing and voluntary. Because petitioner did not enter an Alford plea, the state court was under no obligation, under the federal Constitution, to find a factual basis. Petitioner provided no other reason to find his plea unknowing or involuntary. Accordingly, the court held that petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief. View "Loftis v. Almager" on Justia Law

Defendant feigned multiple acts of biological terrorism by mailing hundreds of packets of powder labeled "Anthrax" - which were actually full of sugar - in an effort to drum up publicity for a self-published book on the dangers of Anthrax. Defendant was convicted on two counts of mailing threatening communications ("threat" counts), 18 U.S.C. 876(c), and three counts of communicating false or misleading information regarding the presence of a biological weapon ("hoax" counts), 18 U.S.C. 1038(a). The court concluded that defendant's mailings to Starbucks and McDonald's constituted true threats and fell outside of the First Amendment's protection and his convictions under section 876(c) did not violate the Constitution; defendant's hoax speech was not protected under the First Amendment; defendant's mailings to Starbucks and McDonald's managers were addressed to natural persons, so there was sufficient evidence for a jury to convict him under section 876(c); and the issues defendant raised regarding jury instructions and prosecutorial misconduct were unpersuasive. The court held, however, that the district court procedurally erred when calculating the applicable Sentencing Guidelines. View "United States v. Keyser" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of willful infliction of corporal injury to his spouse. Defendant contended that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses when the trial judge precluded his counsel from asking defendant's wife whether she was afraid to deviate from her initial incriminating statement to the police because of threats allegedly made against her by the prosecutor. The court held that clearly established federal law, as set forth by the Supreme Court, indicated that the trial court committed constitutional error by denying petitioner the right to meaningful cross-examination of the prosecution's leading witness. The California Court of Appeal's conclusion that the trial court's curtailment did not reach constitutional magnitude was objectively unreasonable, and had a substantial injurious effect on petitioner's verdict. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment of the district court denying habeas corpus and remanded for issuance of the writ. View "Ortiz v. Yates" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326 and subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. At issue on appeal was whether the district court violated the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 (JSSA) or the Constitution in compiling its 2009 master jury wheel. The court held that, although the district court departed from the requirements of the JSSA in several respects, the court found no reversible error in the underlying conviction. Despite the court's conclusion, the court cautioned the district court to take note of the statutory violations the court identified and amend the district court's practice in the future. Because no JSSA violation warranted relief and there was no constitutional violation, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Hernandez-Estrada" on Justia Law