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

In his habeas case, petitioner, who was convicted of multiple murders, argued that his lawyer was ineffective in 1982 for failing to request a full-blown competency hearing. The court held that even assuming for the sake of argument that his lawyer should have requested a plenary competency hearing, petitioner nevertheless suffered no prejudice from the lack of a competency hearing because there was no reasonable probability that he would have been found incompetent to plead guilty. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's request for discovery and a hearing on the claim that his counsel was ineffective in 1986 for failing to move to disqualify a judge based on senility. The court concluded that the judge was not impaired in 1986 and if the state supreme court had no cause to question the judge's mental status, neither did counsel. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of petitioner's habeas corpus petition based on ineffective assistance of counsel and affirmed the denial on all other grounds, remanding for the district court to deny the petition. View "Deere v. Cullen" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for four counts of making false statements relating to health care matters. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of making a false statement relating to a health care benefit program for his communication with California officials under 18 U.S.C. 1035(a); the jury heard sufficient evidence that defendant's statements and concealment were addressed to Medicare; there was sufficient evidence that defendant knowingly provided false information to Medicare investigators in the form of circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish both actus reus and mens reus; the jury had sufficient evidence to find that defendant was aware the certified deliveries were not occurring and deliberately avoided learning the truth; the district court did not err in instructing the jury; the probative value of the admission of evidence regarding the scope of the fraud outweighed any prejudice; and because the court determined no plain error occurred, there was no cause to conduct a review under the cumulative error doctrine. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ajoku" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for failing to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 18 U.S.C. 2250. The court held that Congress had authority under the Commerce Clause to compel defendant, a convicted sex offender who traveled interstate, to register under SORNA. The court also held that under the modified categorical approach, defendant's plea to the state charge of sexual abuse rendered him a Tier III sex offender. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Cabrera-Gutierrez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Because the reading of an I-214 Form was "normally attendant to arrest and custody," and the Border Patrol agent made not effort to question defendant or secure a waiver of her rights, the court held that his actions were not the functional equivalent of express questioning such that they were an "interrogation" in violation of Miranda v. Arizona. Further, based on the circumstances, defendant was not subjected to the functional equivalent of interrogation. Because defendant was not subjected to interrogation or its functional equivalent, the court affirmed the district court's motion to suppress her post-arrest statements. View "United States v. Morgan" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Gantt and Smith were tried and convicted of murder. After the key witness recanted his testimony, all charges were dismissed. The instant appeal concerned the unsuccessful lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. 1983 filed by plaintiffs following their release. The case proceeded to trial and resulted in a verdict for defendants on all claims. Plaintiffs subsequently challenged certain jury instructions and evidentiary rulings. The court concluded that the district court erred in instructing the jury about the level of culpability required for a deliberate fabrication of evidence claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. The error was not harmless and, therefore, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial on the fabrication of evidence. At any retrial on this matter, the district court should consider whether a Brady instruction was warranted and explain its ruling. Further, the correct conspiracy instruction must be given under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiffs' remaining assignments of error either lacked merit or the claims were not supported by sufficient evidence in the record. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial limited to the specific claims outlined. View "Gantt v. City of Los Angeles, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the Secretary's denial of their claims for Medicare coverage for dental services. Plaintiffs contended that this denial was premised on the Secretary's unreasonable interpretation of the Medicare Act, Pub. L. No. 89-97, 79 Stat. 286, which contravened the intent of Congress and violated plaintiffs' right to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment. The court concluded that, although the statutory provision for exclusion of dental services was ambiguous in the sense that plausible divergent constructions could be urged, the Secretary's interpretation of the statute was reasonable. The court also concluded that the Secretary's statutory interpretation warranted Chevron deference and the Secretary's statutory interpretation was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Fournier v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his wife filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants, the warden of the prison where defendant had served his sentence and the director of the Montana Department of Corrections, seeking damages related to his sentence and probation. The court concluded that prison officials who simply enforced facially valid court orders were performing functions necessary to the judicial process. Accordingly, the court held that prison officials, like defendants in this case, who were charged with executing facially valid court orders enjoyed absolute immunity from section 1983 liability for conduct prescribed by those orders. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. View "Engebretson v. Mahoney" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed complaints against defendants alleging that defendants infringed its "diamond kilim" design by selling rugs and other home goods bearing the design. The district court subsequently entered judgment awarding damages against defendants, and sub silentio denying injunctive relief. Defendants timely filed a renewal motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Civil Rule 50(b), as well as a timely motion for a new trial under Rule 59. The district court denied both motions and plaintiff then filed, without support in the Federal Civil Rules, a "Motion for a Permanent Injunction." The district court construed the motion as one for reconsideration under Rule 60(b), and denied that motion. Construing the motion for permanent injunction as a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b), as the district court did, the court concluded that plaintiff failed to file the motion within ten days after entry of judgment. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to decide the appeal. View "Classic Concepts, Inc. v. Linen Source, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision finding that his conviction for possession of marijuana for sale in violation of California Health & Safety Code 11359 was categorically a crime relating to a controlled substance. The court concluded that petitioner failed to met his burden of proving a "realistic probability" that Cailfornia would apply section 11359 to conduct not related to a controlled substance. Just as section 11359 was categorically a controlled substance offense for sentencing purposes, it was categorically a crime relating to a controlled substance for immigration purposes. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Macias-Carreon v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to two counts of possession of contraband and one count of providing contraband to an inmate, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1791. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court plainly erred in interpreting section 1791(c). Because the court held that section 1791(c) only required consecutive sentences where there was more than one conviction resulting from a single item of a controlled substance, the court reversed and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Joseph" on Justia Law