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

This case involved the forfeiture of $671,170 in currency seized from a vehicle rented by claimant, a Canadian citizen. Claimant appealed the district court's dismissal of his verified claim and answer, and the resulting default judgment in favor of the United States, contending that he did not meet the statutory definition of a fugitive from justice under the Fugitive Disentitlement Statute, 28 U.S.C. 2466. The court concluded that the totality of the circumstances supported the district court's conclusion that claimant has intentionally declined to return to the United States as to avoid submitting to the jurisdiction of the California courts and consequently facing the criminal charge pending against him. Therefore, the court concluded that claimant was a fugitive under section 2466(a)(1); the district court did not abuse its discretion in disentitling claimant under section 2466 and striking his answer and claim to the forfeited funds; and the district court did not err in denying claimant's request to convert the government's motion into a motion for summary judgment. The court declined to address claimant's remaining arguments and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. $671, 160 in U.S. Currency" on Justia Law

I-TAP, an approved apprenticeship program for Federal purposes, but not recognized by California as a state-approved apprenticeship program, filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the ground that the CDIR's actions were inconsistent with the National Apprenticeship Act of 1937 (Fitzgerald Act). The court concluded that federal subject-matter jurisdiction existed in this case; the court declined to afford controlling deference to the DOL's new interpretation of the meaning of "Federal purposes" under 29 C.F.R. 29.2 under Auer v. Robbins, but nevertheless adopted that interpretation as the most persuasive construction of the regulation at issue; the court adopted the DOL's new interpretation of Federal purposes, which required of agreements, contracts, etc., that conformity with federal apprenticeship standards be a condition for the federal assistance at issue; plaintiffs' preemption claim failed where the three projects at issue did not qualify as Federal purposes, and it was not impermissible for the CDIR to require the contractors on the projects to comply with California's apprenticeship standards; and plaintiffs' dormant Commerce Clause, equal protection, and substantive due process challenges failed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Indep. Training v. Cal. Dep't Indus. Relations" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitioned for review of the denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that petitioner did not present evidence of imputed political opinion that would compel any reasonable factfinder to conclude that petitioner was subject to persecution because of imputed political beliefs; the reports submitted by petitioner did not compel the conclusion that the Guatemalan government had acquiesced in torture against women, whether as a result of corruption or through cooperation with criminals; and, therefore, substantial evidence supported the BIA's conclusion that petitioner was not persecuted "on account of" a protected ground and that petitioner failed to establish the state action necessary for CAT relief. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Garcia-Milian v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with production, distribution, receipt, and possession of child pornography. Law enforcement officers found 3,400 electronic images and 632 electronic videos of commercial child pornography pursuant to a warrant authorizing an electronic search of all of defendant's computer equipment and digital storage devices. The district court granted defendant's motion to suppress the evidence and the government appealed. The court concluded that, because there was a fair probability that evidence of child pornography would be found on defendant's computer system, the underlying facts supported a finding of probable cause; the warrant was not overbroad and did not raise the risks inherent in over-seizing that the court considered in United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc. (CDT III); the absence of precautionary search protocols, suggested as guidance in the plurality's concurring opinion in CDT III, was not fatal here; and, therefore, the court reversed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress. View "United States v. Schesso" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Armenia, sought review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's decision declaring her asylum application frivolous. The BIA affirmed the IJ's determination that petitioner knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application and that she was statutorily barred from adjustment of status and a 8 U.S.C. 1182(i) waiver on that basis. The court concluded that there was substantial evidence in the record that supported the IJ's and BIA's findings that petitioner received the required warnings and petitioners' arguments to the contrary were without merit. In Matter of X-M-C-, 25I. & N., the BIA held that the only action required to trigger a frivolousness inquiry was the filing of an asylum application and that the IJ and BIA were not prevented from finding that an application was frivolous simply because the applicant withdrew the application or recanted false statements. Even if 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(6) were ambiguous, the court nonetheless owed Chevron deference to the BIA's published interpretation of the statute, which was reasonable and well-grounded in the policy behind the statute. Accordingly, the court held that section 2258(d)(6) permitted a frivolousness finding based on a withdrawn application and denied the petition for review. View "Kulakchyan v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

On interlocutory appeal, the government challenged the district court's grant of reconsideration and suppression of evidence found at an apartment defendant had entered several times in recent days before the search. At issue was whether the warrantless search of the apartment was valid under the Fourth Amendment because defendant was subject to a parole search condition. The court concluded that under its "relatively stringent" standard, the officers lacked probable cause to conclude that defendant lived at the apartment that they searched. In this instance, it was abundantly clear that the searched property was a residence, a parole condition permitting searches of "your residence and any property under your control" was triggered only when the officers have probable cause that the parolee lives at the residence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Grandberry" on Justia Law

Petitioner, along with one of his accomplices, was found guilty of murder. After petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied, the court granted a certificate of appealability to the issue of whether the exclusion of the accomplice's statement violated petitioner's right to present a complete defense. The court concluded that the holding of the California Court of Appeal that the accomplice's confession was properly excluded was entitled to deference under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2254. The accomplice gave three conflicting and contradictory versions of the murder and it was not unreasonable for the California Court of Appeal to conclude that these statements rendered the accomplice's own inculpatory statement unreliable. View "Phillips v. Herndon" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to two counts of possessing child pornography. On appeal, defendant challenged his 240-month concurrent sentences. The court vacated and remanded for resentencing where the district court erred in considering defendant's compelled statements obtained during sex offender treatment in violation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The court left the issue of the admissibility of a witness's testimony for the district court on remand and declined to reassign the case. View "United States v. Bahr, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff is a former prison gang member and police informant. Defendants are producers of the documentary television series, "Gangland." Plaintiff filed suit for various claims alleging that defendants' failure to conceal his identity in an episode of "Gangland" endangered his life and cost him his job as an informant. On interlocutory appeal, defendants challenged the district court's denial of their anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motion to strike the complaint under California Code of Civil Procedure 425.16. The court concluded that defendants have met their initial burden under the anti-SLAPP statute where defendants' acts in furtherance of their right of free speech were in connection with issues of public interest. The court also concluded that, at this juncture, plaintiff's claims were not barred by the release he signed. It follows that plaintiff's statements were not barred by the parole evidence rule. The court further concluded that plaintiff met his burden of showing a probability of prevailing on his claims for (1) public disclosure of private fact; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (3) false promise; and (4) declaratory relief. Plaintiff failed to establish a reasonable probability of prevailing on his claims for (1) appropriation of likeness and (2) negligent infliction of emotional distress. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Doe v. Gangland Productions, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner, sentenced to death on each of two counts of first-degree murder, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition. On appeal, petitioner raised claims regarding the trial court's use of dual juries at trial; the trial court's use of a leg brace as a security measure during trial; and whether the sentencing judge properly considered all mitigating evidence under Lockett v. Ohio and Eddings v. Oklahoma. The court concluded that the district court properly denied relief on petitioner's "courtroom layout" and Lockett/Eddings claims, because the Arizona Supreme Court's decision denying relief was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law or based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. The court agreed with the State that the Lockett/Eddings line of cases held only that a sentencer must fully consider proffered mitigation evidence and did not affect a sentencer's determination of its weight. In this instance, the record made clear that the trial court adequately considered and weighed the mitigation evidence. The court also concluded that the district court properly denied relief on petitioner's remaining dual juries and "shackling" claims, because the claims were procedurally defaulted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "McKinney v. Ryan" on Justia Law