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

Defendant, a juvenile male, was charged with second-degree murder and using a firearm during a crime of violence. Defendant was seventeen years old at the time of the alleged offenses. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's order granting the government's motion to transfer juvenile proceedings for adult prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 5032. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by making findings regarding defendant's intellectual development and psychological maturity; the district court did not abuse its discretion by making a finding about the alleged discrepancy in individualized attention and counseling programs when comparing the adult and juvenile detention systems; and the district court's presumption of guilt for purposes of the transfer decision did not violate defendant's due process rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. JJ, Juvenile Male" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's holding that his conviction for simple kidnapping under California Penal Code (CPC) 207(a) was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), making him statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. The court held that simple kidnapping under CPC 207(a) was not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude where simple kidnapping did not involve an intent to harm someone, the actual infliction of harm upon someone, or an action that affected a protected class of victim. The court granted the petition for review and remanded to allow the BIA to conduct a modified categorical analysis of petitioner's crime. View " Castrijon-Garcia v Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of knowingly possessing a biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate a sentence. The court addressed defendant's claims regarding a Brady violation, ineffective assistance of counsel, juror bias, and cumulative error, but found no reversible error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to vacate the sentence. View "United States v. Olsen" on Justia Law

Sideman, the legal representative for a taxpayer who was under criminal investigation by the IRS, appealed from the district court's order enforcing an IRS administrative summons to produce the taxpayer's documents. Sideman argued that producing the documents would be testimonial in violation of the taxpayer's Fifth Amendment rights. The district court's finding that the IRS could independently authenticate the tax records contained in the identified collection of boxes and folders currently held by Sideman was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the court held that the district court did not err in applying the foregone conclusion exception when enforcing Sideman's compliance with the summons. View "United States v. Sideman & Bancroft, LLP" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of robbery/murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, defendant raised several claims regarding prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and improper admission of post-arrest statements. The court addressed each claim and held that the district court properly denied the petition. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Cunningham v. Wong" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for felony and misdemeanor assault. Defendant challenged his conviction on due-process grounds, claiming his constitutional rights were violated where the prosecution "threatened" one of its own witnesses with possible perjury charges, allegedly causing the witness to change her previous exculpatory trial testimony to be inculpatory. The court rejected the due-process challenge because defendant failed to meet his evidentiary burden. The court also held that defendant's claim of sentencing error failed because it relied on a misunderstanding of the court's opinion in United States v. Waknine. View "United States v. Juan" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged the Forest Service's decision adopting the modified Idaho Roadless Rule. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants and adopted the district court's comprehensive judgment in Appeal No. 11-35269. The district court found that the Forest Service did not violate the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., in preparing the Biological Opinion and that the Forest Service did not violate the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., in relying on the Biological Opinion or in preparing the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision approving the Rule. Consequently, cross appeals were dismissed as moot. View "Jayne, et al v. Sherman, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action claiming that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs related to dental care. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's judgment as a matter of law in favor of Dr. Dillard and Dr. Fitter and judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Dr. Brooks. At issue was whether the district court erred when it instructed the jury on the question of whether Dr. Brooks could be held responsible for failing to provide services when he lacked resources. The court held that the principle contained in the instructions given in this case was a proper one where the instruction took into account the duties, discretion, and means available. The instruction, in effect, stated that if Dr. Brooks could not "render or cause to be rendered" the needed services because of a lack of resources that he could not cure, he also could not individually be liable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Peralta v. Dillard, et al" on Justia Law

Defendants, four Chinese nationals, appealed their convictions and sentences for federal crimes that they committed as part of a scheme to steal funds from the Bank of China, where two of the defendants were high-level employees. Defendants also appealed their convictions related to their efforts to escape prosecution and to retain the proceeds by illegal transfers of funds and by immigration fraud. The court held that defendants' count one convictions were not the result of an improper extraterritorial application of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962(d), conspiracy statute because defendants' criminal enterprise involved both bank fraud and immigration fraud centered on stealing money from the Bank of China and traveling freely with that stolen money in the United States. The evidence was sufficient to support convictions on money laundering conspiracy and conspiracy to transport stolen money. The court remanded for resentencing because the district court improperly relied on defendants' foreign conduct to meet the requirements of U.S.S.G. 2S1(a)(1)(A) resulting in procedural error, improperly applied a one-level enhancement based on foreign conduct, and failed to provide an adequate legal and factual basis for the restitution order. View "United States v. Xu" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and was sentenced to 77 months' imprisonment. After the Sentencing Commission amended the crack-cocaine guidelines, the district court granted a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court held that defendant satisfied the first requirement for relief under section 3582(c). The court held, however, that U.S.S.G. 1B1.10(a)(1) mandated that the Career Offender guidelines were defendant's "applicable guidelines"; thus, the district court did not have jurisdiction either to hear defendant's section 3582(c) motion or to act sua sponte. The court also held that Freeman v. United States did not hold that a defendant's agreed sentencing range was necessarily the same as his applicable sentencing range and, even if it did, Freeman would have been abrogated by Amendment 759's clarification of the definition of "applicable guidelines." Under that definition, defendant's applicable guidelines were the Career Offender guidelines. Thus, defendant was not entitled to a reduction in sentence under section 3582. Accordingly, the district court's order reducing defendant's sentence was reversed and the case remanded with instructions to reinstate defendant's original sentence as set forth in his plea agreement. View "United States v. Pleasant" on Justia Law