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

Petitioner, a Canadian, was ordered removed when customs officials determined that he planned to work in the United States as a photographer/cameraman without documentation. At issue was whether a Canadian arriving at the border and subjected to expedited removal but never detained was entitled to habeas relief, under either the traditional habeas structure, 28 U.S.C. 2241, or the more limited regime applicable to expedited removal orders, 8 U.S.C. 1252(e)(2). The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioner's claims under the traditional habeas statute because petitioner was never in custody. Determining that it had jurisdiction under the limited review provisions of section 1252(e)(2), the court held that petitioner was not entitled to relief because, as applied to the narrow facts of this case, section 1252(e)(2) did not permit the court to consider any further collateral damage. View "Smith v. U.S. Customs & Border Protection" on Justia Law

Inhale claimed copyright protection in the shape of a hookah water container that it first published in 2008 and registered with the United States Copyright Office in 2011. Inhale filed suit against Starbuzz for copyright infringement, claiming that Starbuzz sold water containers that were identical in shape to Inhale's container. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Starbuzz after determining that the shape of the water container was not copyrightable. The court concluded that the shape of a container is not independent of the container's utilitarian function - to hold the contents within its shape - because the shape accomplishes the function. Therefore, the district court correctly concluded that the shape of Inhale's hookah water container was not copyrightable. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion under 17 U.S.C. 505 by awarding attorneys' fees to Starbuzz. Moreover, the court awarded attorneys' fees incurred in the defense of this appeal to Starbuzz under section 505 in an amount to be determined by the district court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment and remanded. View "Inhale, Inc. v. Starbuzz Tobacco, Inc." on Justia Law

After debtor filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, the trustee filed a motion for turnover under section 542(a) of the Bankruptcy Code against debtor to recover $6,155.19 of her petition-date account balance. The bankruptcy court denied the motion because debtor did not have possession or control of the funds at the time the trustee filed the motion for turnover. The district court affirmed. The court concluded that the plain language of section 542(a), pre-Code practice, and the context of other Code provisions indicated that the trustee's turnover power was not restricted to property of the estate at the time the motion is filed. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Shapiro v. Henson" on Justia Law

Defendant filed a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion where the request that family members and spectators leave the courtroom until seats became available was at most a trivial courtroom closure that did not implicate defendant's Sixth Amendment right. The failure to object to the courtroom closure request or to appeal the conviction on that ground was not deficient performance on the part of trial counsel. Finally, defendant was not prejudiced. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Dharni" on Justia Law