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

Defendant appealed his drug-related convictions, arguing that his due process rights were violated by the government's destruction of evidence and that the trial judge erred in denying his motion to dismiss. In the alternative, defendant argued that the trial judge erred in requiring a showing of bad faith in order to give a remedial jury instruction. The court held that while Supreme Court precedent demanded that a showing of bad faith was required for dismissal, it was not required for a remedial jury instruction. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the dismissal and reversed the denial of the remedial jury instruction. Accordingly, the court remanded for a new trial with a remedial instruction. View "United States v. Sivilla" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Mexican citizen, petitioned for review of the BIA's order denying withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1231(b) and returning him to Mexico. The BIA concluded that the social group petitioner proposed, framed in the terms presented to the BIA - insulin-dependent persons with mental-health problems, including posttraumatic stress and depressive disorders - was not "particular" as the statute required. The BIA also concluded that the record did not show a clear probability of persecution because of membership in a particular social group. The court concluded that the BIA correctly found that petitioner failed to show that he was a member of a particular social group or that he would be persecuted because of his membership in a particular social group. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Mendoza-Alvarez v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Amy and Vicky, child pornography victims, petitioned for a writ of mandamus pursuant to the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3771. The court concluded that the district court did not commit legal error or abuse its discretion in declining to impose joint and several liability in this case. Petitioners' request that this court overrule United States v. Kennedy, which required a court to identify a causal connection between the defendant's offense conduct and the victim's specific losses before awarding restitution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2259, was previously considered and denied. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus. View "In re: Amy & Vicky, et al v. USDC, Sacramento" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim against correctional officials at the Saguaro Correctional Center (SCC), asserting that the decision to house him in the same cell with a member of a rival gang after he had fought with another member of that same gang violated his Eight Amendment rights. The district court rejected defendant's claims that defendants were deliberately indifferent to the risk he faced from the cell assignment. The court concluded that, despite the late Rand v. Rowland notice, plaintiff did not suffer a deprivation of substantial rights when the district court decided the summary judgment motion on the merits. Plaintiff's response demonstrated that he understood the nature of summary judgment and complied with the requirements of Rule 56. Thus, reversal and remand of the district court was not required. Further, the undisputed evidence in the record showed that defendants were not deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of an attack if the rival gang member and plaintiff were placed in a cell together. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants. View "Labatad v. CCA, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant was a dentist who was charged with crimes relating to cocaine possession and distribution. On appeal, defendant challenged his convictions and sentence imposed for one count of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, one count of distribution of cocaine, and two counts of maintaining a drug-involved premises. The government cross-appealed the district court's denial of forfeiture of the seized equity from the sale of defendant's home. The court affirmed defendant's conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute; affirmed the district court's determination of the drug amount and refusal to grant a minor role adjustment; vacated the distribution count because it was duplicitous; vacated the convictions for maintaining drug-involved premises because the district court committed plain error by utilizing a "significant purpose" instruction rather than a "primary or principal use" instruction; and reversed the district court's denial of the government's forfeiture motion. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Mancuso" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with assault under a statute that provided for a maximum prison sentence of six months. On appeal, defendant argued that the possibility of being ordered to pay a substantial amount of money in restitution gave him the right to a trial by jury under the Sixth and Seventh Amendments. The court concluded that the prosecution of defendant, even though it resulted in an order requiring him to make monetary payment in restitution, was still a prosecution for a petty offense, and was not a civil action. Therefore, defendant had no right to a jury under either the Sixth or Seventh Amendment and the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Stanfill El" on Justia Law

Fitness Holdings, the debtor in this bankruptcy case, was a home fitness corporation. At issue was whether debtor's pre-bankruptcy transfer of funds to its sole shareholder, in repayment of a purported loan, could be a constructively fraudulent transfer under 11 U.S.C. 548(a)(1)(B). The court held that a court has the authority to determine whether a transaction created a debt if it created a right to payment under state law. Because the district court concluded that it lacked authority to make this determination, the court vacated the decision and remanded for further proceedings. View "In re: Fitness Holdings Int'l" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed an action under 8 U.S.C. 1503(a) seeking a declaratory judgment that he is a citizen of the United States. Plaintiff was born in the Philippine Islands and his father was a U.S. citizen who had lived his entire life in the Philippines. Plaintiff argued that, as a child born out of wedlock, he was covered by a special provision of the Nationality Act of 1940, Pub. L. No. 76-853, section 201(e), that made section 201(e) applicable retroactively to children born out of wedlock before the Act's effective date. The court concluded that the 1940 Act was not the law in effect at the time of plaintiff's birth in 1931, so he must establish that the Act applied retroactively to individuals before its effective date. The court did not think that the provisions of the Act on which defendant relied reflected a legislative intention that they should apply retroactively. Further, plaintiff conceded that he could not meet the condition precedent to acquiring citizenship, that his paternity have been established by legitimation or adjudication during minority. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's summary judgment dismissal of his action. View "Friend v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for distribution, possession with intent to distribute, and conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to deliver a "missing witness" instruction; the district court erred by sua sponte instructing the jury not to "speculate" as to why the witness was absent; the sua sponte instruction was harmless with regards to the charges of distribution and possession with intent to distribute; the court did not need to decide whether the district court's sua sponte instruction had a prejudicial effect on the conspiracy charge because the court reversed the conspiracy conviction on other grounds; even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, there was no such agreement between defendant and someone else to distribute meth; therefore, the evidence was insufficient to convict defendant of this offense; and the court rejected defendant's contention that the judge should not have imposed a sentencing enhancement under 21 U.S.C. 841(b). Accordingly, the court vacated the conspiracy conviction, remanded to the district court to grant a judgment of acquittal on that count alone and to conform the sentence accordingly, and affirmed the remainder of defendant's convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Ramirez" on Justia Law

This dispute involved a revenue-sharing agreement between GCSD and SNW to build the Skywalk over the Grand Canyon on remote tribal land. GCSD filed suit against SNW seeking declaratory judgment that the Hualapai Tribe lacked the authority to condemn its intangible property rights and injunctive relief. After multiple hearings, the district court denied GCSD's temporary restraining order to enjoin SNW based on the principles of comity and ordered GCSD to exhaust tribal court remedies prior to review in federal court. The court affirmed and held that where, as here, a tribal court has asserted jurisdiction and was entertaining a suit, the tribal court must have acted in bad faith for exhaustion to be excused. The facts of this case did not support a finding of bad faith on the part of the tribal court. The submitted evidence supported the district court's finding that the tribal court operated independently from the tribal council and the evidence presented did not meet the narrow futility exception. The tribal court did not plainly lack jurisdiction because Montana v. United States's main rule was unlikely to apply to the facts of this case. Furthermore, the district court correctly relied on Water Wheel Camp Recreation Area, Inc. v. LaRance, which provided for tribal jurisdiction without even reaching the application of Montana. Even if the tribal consensual relationship with SNW or the financial implications of the agreement likely placed it squarely within one of Montana's exceptions and allowed for tribal jurisdiction. View "Grand Canyon Skywalk Dev. v. 'Sa' Nyu Wa Inc." on Justia Law