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

Petitioner challenged the district court's conclusion that his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas petition was time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2244(d). As to statutory tolling, the court affirmed the district court's ruling that petitioner was not entitled to statutory gap tolling for the 44 day period between the denial of his first habeas petition filed in the superior court and the filing of his second petition in that same court, because his second petition was not limited to an elaboration of the facts relating to the claims in his first petition. As to equitable tolling, even assuming de novo review, the court affirmed the district court's ruling that petitioner was not entitled to such tolling where he has failed to meet his burden of showing that his "mental impairment made it impossible to meet the filing deadline under the totality of the circumstances, including reasonably available access to assistance." View "Stancle v. Clay" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from plaintiff's suit to recover overpayments from the IRS and his subsequent appeal of the district court's judgment which did not award him an overpayment related to his 1999 tax year. The court held that a taxpayer's claim for credit of an overpayment was limited to the amount of the overpayment made within the applicable look-back period in I.R.C. 6511(b)(2)(A). Any claim for refund based on an amount claimed as credit but paid outside of the look-back period was time-barred and uncollectible. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment where plaintiff's claim for credit of his overpayment of his 1999 taxes was time-barred under section 6511(b)(2)(A). View "Reynoso v. United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court held that petitioner exhausted his claim, that his trial counsel was ineffective, before the Washington Supreme Court. The court also held that the Washington Supreme Court adjudicated his claims on the merits. Nevertheless, the court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief on this claim because the Washington Supreme Court's disposition of the claim was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. The court also affirmed the denial of habeas relief on petitioner's remaining claims. View "Gentry v. Sinclair" on Justia Law

The FTC sued defendants alleging that their online marketing of prepaid debit cards and short-term loans to consumers in the subprime market violated section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 45. After the parties settled and stipulated to the terms of a Final Order, the FTC applied for an order to show cause why defendants should not be held in contempt for violating the Final Order through their marketing of two products: a shopping club membership program and a "no cost" debit card. The court affirmed the contempt order in its entirety and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it sanctioned defendants for the full amount lost by consumers. View "FTC v. EDebitPay, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

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