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

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

The Commonwealth appealed the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged that she was terminated without cause from her position as Special Assistant to the Governor for Women's Affairs in violation of Article III, section 22 of the Commonwealth Constitution. Based on the meaning of Article III, section 22 determined by the final arbiter of Commonwealth law, the court held that plaintiff did not have a protected interest in continued employment beyond the term of the governor who appointed her. Therefore, plaintiff's termination without cause did not violate the Due Process Clause, and the district court's judgment was vacated and the case remanded. View "Peter-Palican v. Government of The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence of ten years imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to charges related to a conspiracy to distribute controlled substances at the age of 73. Defendant was a practicing psychiatrist at the time he was diagnosed with frontotemporal dementia at the age of 63. The court held that the record before the district court at sentencing was sufficient to cause a genuine doubt as to defendant's competence and that the district court committed plain error by failing to order a hearing sua sponte. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence, remanded for further proceedings, and directed that all further proceedings be assigned to a new judge on remand. View "United States v. Dreyer" on Justia Law

This case involved the Service's regulations under Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1371(a), that authorized incidental take of polar bears and Pacific walruses resulting from oil and gas exploration activities in the Chukchi Sea and on the adjacent coast of Alaska. Plaintiffs brought suit challenging the regulations and accompanying environmental review documents under various environmental acts. The court held that the Service permissibly determined that only "relatively small numbers" of polar bears and Pacific walruses would be taken in relation to the size of their larger populations, because the agency separately determined that the anticipated take would have only a "negligible impact" on the mammals' annual rates of recruitment or survival. The "small numbers" determination was consistent with the statute and was not arbitrary and capricious. The court also held that the Service's accompanying Biological Opinion and Environmental Assessment (EA) complied with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. View "Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Salazar, et al." on Justia Law

This case arose when defendant, a Hollywood movie director, hired a former private investigator to illegally wiretap the telephone conversations of two individuals. Defendant was subsequently convicted of two counts of making a material false statement to the FBI and of one count of making a false statement to the district court during his guilty-plea hearing. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress a telephone conversation, and in the alternative, defendant sought remand for an evidentiary hearing on the issue. Because the recording was not made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act, the court concluded that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's two motions for recusal of the district court judge. View "United States v. McTiernan" on Justia Law

CIRI filed suit against defendants, shareholders of CIRI, alleging that they had violated the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), 43 U.S.C. 1601-1629(h), and Alaska law. On appeal, defendants challenged the district court's holding that it had subject matter jurisdiction over the ANCSA claims. The court held that there was federal jurisdiction under the general federal question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. 1331, over plaintiff's ANCSA claims because federal law created the cause of action in the claims and because the claims were not frivolous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Cook Inlet Region, Inc. v. Rude, et al." on Justia Law

These consolidated appeals arose from a two-day execution of a search warrant by the Guam Police Department's (GPD) SWAT team in coordination with federal DEA and ATF agents. The search resulted in one of the largest busts of stolen items in Guam's history. The search took place on Raymond (Ray) and Lourdes (Lou) Duenas's compound. The district court denied Ray's and Lou's motions to suppress evidence of the drugs and stolen goods seized in the raid and their statements. A jury convicted Ray and Lou on multiple counts. The Ninth Circuit Court (1) reversed Ray's conviction, holding that the district court abused its discretion by admitting the former testimony of by-then-deceased Officer Smith under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) because it incorrectly concluded that defense counsel had a similar motive to cross-examine Officer Smith when it questioned him at the suppression hearing as it would have had at the trial; (2) affirmed Lou's conviction, as it was supported by sufficient evidence; and (3) held that the district court did not err by deciding not to exclude the stolen items, drugs, and other paraphernalia found in the compound. View "United States v. Duenas" on Justia Law