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

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of her habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. At issue was whether aliens who were removable, but not yet subject to a removal order, were "in custody" for purposes of section 2241. The court held that they were not. In this case, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioner's habeas petition because she was not in custody for purposes of section 2241. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order denying the petition and dismissed the case. View "Veltmann-Barragan v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of first degree murder, kidnapping, robbery, and theft, appealed the denial of his habeas petition. The court, inter alia, concluded on the merits, without reaching the procedural default issue, that petitioner's Brady v. Maryland claim regarding the state's suppression of the codefendant's notes failed because petitioner could not establish that the allegedly suppressed evidence was material to the guilty verdict. Petitioner's claim regarding the state's alleged suppression of omitted photographs was procedurally defaulted. On the merits, petitioner's claim that the detective knowingly presented false testimony in violation of Napue v. Illinois was rejected because petitioner failed to establish that the detective knowingly provided false testimony during trial. The court granted petitioner's motion to expand the certificate of appealability to cover his causal nexus claim; denied petitioner's motion to expand the certificate of appealability to cover his juror misconduct claim; and affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief. View "Henry v. Ryan" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, arguing that the district court should have ordered the government to comply with a plea agreement for safety valve or minor participation sentencing, and that his guidelines calculation should not have been adjusted upward for a 2008 conviction for driving with a suspended license. The court concluded that the record amply supported the district court's finding of fact that no such agreement was made upon which defendant relied to his detriment. The court concluded that defendant should not have received an additional point for "driving while license suspended" where defendant was not sentenced to probation. Accordingly, the court confirmed defendant's conviction but vacated and remanded the sentence. View "United States v. Gonzalez Vazquez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 federal habeas corpus petition based upon the Supreme Court's decision in Skilling v. United States, which narrowed the scope of the honest services fraud theory. Defendant,a former attorney and trustee of private trusts, pleaded guilty to honest services fraud. The government conceded that defendant was actually innocent of honest services fraud in light of Skilling, which confined the reach of the offense to cases of bribes and kickbacks. The court vacated the district court's dismissal of defendant's honest services fraud claim where no evidence suggested that defendant either engaged in bribery or received kickbacks. View "United States v. Avery" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's Proposition 100. Proposition 100 commands that Arizona state courts could not set bail for serious felony offenses as prescribed by the legislature if the person charged has entered or remained in the United States illegally and if the proof was evident or the presumption great as to the charge. After reviewing the record, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment and partial dismissal, concluding that plaintiffs have not raised triable issues of fact as to whether Proposition 100 and its implementing procedures violated the substantive and procedural due process guarantees of the United State's Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, nor whether the Proposition 100 laws were preempted by federal immigration law. The court concluded that the Arizona Legislature and Arizona voters passed the Proposition 100 laws to further the state's legitimate and compelling interest in seeing that those accused of serious state-law crimes were brought to trial. View "Lopez-Valenzuela v. County of Maricopa" on Justia Law

Defendant, charged with two counts of Transmission of Threatening Interstate Communications and Transmission of Threatening Communication by U.S. Mail, appealed the district court's order finding him incompetent to stand trial. The court held that a defendant had a constitutional and statutory right to testify at his pretrial competency hearing; only the defendant, not counsel, could waive the constitutional right to testify; the district court had an obligation to admonish a defendant that his disruptive conduct could result in his removal from the courtroom and waiver of his right to testify; and the denial of defendant's right to testify was not harmless because the court did not know to what defendant may have testified. Accordingly, the court vacated the order and remanded for a new competency hearing. View "United States v. Gillenwater, II" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to possession of child pornography. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. The court concluded, under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, that the search in this case was executed in objectively reasonable reliance on the search warrant. Because the court found sufficient ambiguity in the court's precedent, despite United States v. Weber, to confer a grant of qualified immunity in Dougherty v. City of Corvina in 2011, the court was foreclosed from holding that Weber rendered good faith reliance on the warrant in this case impossible in 2010; and defendant's remaining arguments were unavailing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Needham" on Justia Law

Petitioners appealed separate decisions denying their 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas petitions, alleging that their convictions were secured in violation of Batson v. Kentucky. At issue was whether a state court violated a defendant's constitutional rights by denying a Batson motion based on a prosecutor's credible explanation that he or she made an honest mistake in exercising a peremptory challenge to dismiss the wrong juror. The court concluded that it was not objectively unreasonable for the California Court of Appeal to affirm the trial court's Batson ruling on the ground that an honest mistake was not evidence of racial bias. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief. View "Aleman v. Uribe" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued defendants alleging that they had failed to adequately evaluate the effects of the Mudflow Vegetation Management Project on the Northern Spotted Owl's critical habitat, in violation of section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2). On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits as to its ESA claim that defendants arbitrarily or capriciously approved the Mudflow Project. Plaintiff's challenge was premised on a misunderstanding of regulatory terms, an unsupported reading of a duty to consider cumulative effects under section 7(a)(2), and selected portions of the record taken out of context. View "Conservation Congress v. U.S. Forest Serv." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of his son, filed suit against the Hawaii Department of Education, alleging violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400(d). The district court found that the Department did not deny the son a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by holding an annual individualized education program (IEP) meeting without the participation of the parent. Plaintiff did not attend the meeting even though he actively sought to reschedule it in order to participate. The court concluded, however, that the Department denied the son a FAPE by denying plaintiff the opportunity to participate and plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement if he could establish that the private school placement was proper under the Act. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Doug C., et al. v. State of Hawaii Dep't of Educ." on Justia Law