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

Multistar, a for-hire motor carrier engaged in the business of transporting hazardous materials, petitioned for review of FMCSA's order to cease operations, and, in a separate petition for review, challenged the agency's denial of Multistar's petition for administrative review. The court dismissed the petitions insofar as they challenged the "unsatisfactory" rating and the order to cease operations because the court could not reach the merits of Multistar's substantive claims where there was no final agency decision. The court held that Multistar received all of the process it was due with regard to the contested violations, and the agency's denial of Multistar's petition for review was not arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, the court dismissed in part and denied in part. View "Multistar Industries, Inc. v. USDOT, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of committing lewd and lascivious acts upon his stepdaughter, and of attempting to dissuade her from reporting those acts to the police. Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254, arguing that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel and the district court granted the petition. The court concluded that petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel where counsel failed to interview a potentially important witness or to introduce significant exculpatory evidence that she could have provided. Further, counsel's deficient performance prejudiced petitioner where there was a reasonable probability that, but for trial counsel's deficient performance, the outcome of the trial would have been different. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Cannedy, Jr. v. Adams" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed from the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner contended that the California Court of Appeal unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court precedent when it affirmed the trial court's decision to admit as evidence statements made by her during a station-house interview. Because the court concluded that fairminded jurists could disagree as to whether petitioner was "in custody" when she made the statements in dispute, the court affirmed the district court's denial of her application for habeas relief. View "Dyer v. Hornbeck" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's affirmation of the IJ's conclusion that petitioner's application for cancellation of removal was abandoned after petitioner's counsel did not file the application on time. The BIA found that petitioner had not complied with one of the procedural requirements announced in Matter of Lozado. The court read the BIA's decision as denying petitioner's motion to reopen, over which the court had jurisdiction. The court held that the BIA abused its discretion in applying Lozado where the record was undisputed that petitioner's counsel failed to file his application; petitioner lost his opportunity to apply for cancellation of removal; and therefore, petitioner was prejudiced by counsel's ineffective assistance. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, reversed, and remanded for the BIA to reopen petitioner's case and allow him to file his application for cancellation of removal. View "Correa-Rivera v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for abusive sexual contact in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1153 and 244, and contested the portion of his sentence imposing a lifetime term of supervised release and several conditions of his supervised release. The court concluded that defendant's confession was properly admitted; defendant validly waived his rights to a jury trial and an indictment, and the district court did not plainly err by accepting defendant's counsel's waiver of his right to confrontation; the court rejected defendant's contention that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting expert testimony about the DNA evidence used to implicate him; the court held that the district court properly admitted the testimony of the grandmother and uncle under the excited utterance exception to the general hearsay exclusion; the testimony of the officer was not properly admitted at trial but its admission was harmless error; and the court rejected defendant's argument that prosecutorial misconduct materially affected the fairness of the trial and that the trial court relied on insufficient evidence. The court remanded for the district court to reconsider the plethysmograph testing requirement, to clarify the condition that defendant "shall not possess, view, or otherwise, use any other material that is sexually stimulating, sexually oriented, or deemed to be inappropriate by the probation officer and/or treatment provider," to adjust his probation requirements so that they were definite and certain, and to provide adequate explanation for defendant's conditions of supervised release. The court affirmed in part and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Preston" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of charges stemming from the brutal beating of his wife, petitioned for review of the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner claimed that his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon was a lesser-included offense of his conviction for infliction of corporal injury on a spouse, thus, violating the Double Jeopardy Clause. Apprendi v. New Jersey, Texas v. Cobb, and Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania - whether considered individually or together - did not create "clearly established Federal law" requiring a state court to consider sentencing enhancements as an element of an offense for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. A state court could not be expected - much less required - to refer to federal law which was not clearly established. Thus, the court held that the state court's decision was not "contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law." The Supreme Court has not squarely addressed this issue and fairminded jurists could disagree as to the constitutional principle. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Smith v. Hedgpeth, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs contended that the BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq., and its own regulations, 43 C.F.R. 3809 et seq., by permitting Denison to restart mining operations at the Arizona 1 Mine in 2009, after a 17-year hiatus, under a plan of operations that BLM approved in 1988. The court concluded that the prior panel did not intend that its brief affirmation of a preliminary injunction denial become law of the case; BLM's decision to allow Denison to resume mining under the 1988 plan of operations was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; because the 1988 plan had been approved, BLM's obligation under NEPA had been fulfilled and therefore, BLM did not unlawfully withhold required agency action; BLM's update of the reclamation bond should not be set aside as not in accordance with law or without observance of procedure required by law as plaintiffs contended; BLM's invocation of the categorical exclusion was not arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Center for Biological Diversity, et al v. Salazar, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering and thirty counts of money laundering. On appeal, defendant challenged the portion of his sentence that imposed forfeiture and restitution. Defendant argued that, because the FBI was essentially a part of the DOJ, the two entities were functionally the same. Thus, he argued, requiring him to pay forfeiture to the DOJ and restitution to the FBI would result in an impermissible double recovery for the government. The court concluded that the two payments represented different types of funds: punitive and compensatory. They were different in nature, kind, and purpose. Therefore, it was irrelevant as to what extent the FBI and DOJ were distinct entities and the district court did not clearly err when it did not offset defendant's forfeiture amount. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his application for adjustment of status and its denial of his motion to reopen based on new evidence. The BIA concluded that petitioner was ineligible for adjustment of status because of a 1997 conviction for possession of marijuana for sale in violation of California Health & Safety Code section 11359. Petitioner contended that the conviction was actually for simple possession of marijuana in violation of Health & Safety Code section 11357, and that, as a result, he was eligible for relief. The court concluded that petitioner failed to establish that the state court changed his 1997 drug conviction from possession of marijuana for sale under section 11359 to simple possession of marijuana under section 11357. Because petitioner remained inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 1182 notwithstanding the state court's expungement of his section 11359 offense, he was ineligible for adjustment of status. Accordingly, the court denied the petitions for review. View "Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit against officials from the California State Prison, alleging constitutional violations relating to his six-day placement on contraband watch. Plaintiff was placed on contraband watch after three unlabeled bottles found in his prison cell tested positive for methamphetamine. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in part but denied summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's Eighth Amendment and due process claims against Defendant Mandeville and Rosario. The court held that both Defendant Mandeville and Rosario were entitled to qualified immunity because the law at the time plaintiff was on contraband watch did not clearly establish that their actions were unconstitutional. View "Chappell v. Mandeville, et al" on Justia Law