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

Defendant pleaded guilty for unlawfully attempting to reenter the United States after having previously been removed. At issue was whether the district court erroneously held that defendant's petty theft convictions each categorically qualified as an aggravated felony. The court held that because the judicially-noticeable documents submitted by the United States Attorney established clearly and unequivocally that defendant's May 30, 2006 petty theft conviction was based upon his plea of guilty to conduct that constituted a generic theft offense, and because this was a theft offense conviction for which the term of imprisonment was at least one year, defendant's offense level was correctly increased by eight levels under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(C).

Petitioner, a citizen and national of Honduras, filed an application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA denied the application, concluding that petitioner had not established that he would more likely than not be tortured if removed to Honduras. The court held that, because the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to potentially dispositive testimony by petitioner's expert witnesses and did not address all of petitioner's claims, the court granted the petition and remanded to the BIA.

Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus, challenging the California Board of Parole Hearings' (Board) denial of his parole. Defendant, the warden, appealed the district court's order instructing the Board to conduct a new parole hearing. The court held that because the district court's order was not a final decision, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Defendant appealed from his conviction for importation of marijuana and possession of marijuana. Defendant contended, inter alia, that the district court erred by preventing him from presenting evidence of duress at trial and by refusing to give a jury instruction on the defense of duress. The court held that the district court did not err in finding that defendant failed to make the prima facie showing of duress necessary to present the defense at trial and to receive a duress jury instruction.

Defendant was convicted of, among other things, shipping and receiving firearms through interstate commerce while using a controlled substance, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) because defendant illegally grew and sold marijuana, as well as had a business of dealing in firearms. At issue was the constitutionality of section 922(g)(3). The court held that because Congress could constitutionally deprive felons and mentally ill people of the right to possess and carry weapons, the court concluded that Congress could also prohibit illegal drug users from possessing firearms.

Defendant was convicted of misdemeanor possession of methamphetamine possession and sentenced to three years' probation. Defendant appealed his conviction and two conditions of probation, one permitting suspicionless searches and one requiring him to submit to DNA collection. The court affirmed defendant's conviction and upheld the imposition of the suspicionless search condition in light of the court's precedents. The court held, however, that the district court exceeded its statutory authority by imposing the DNA condition pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 14132(d). Accordingly, the court reversed with instructions to strike that condition and to order expungement of DNA records collected pursuant to it.

Plaintiffs alleged that defendant, a non-profit Christian organization operating a residential drug treatment program and two homeless shelters, engaged in religious discrimination in providing shelter and residential recovery services in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. 3601-3631. At issue was the extent of the protection afforded by the FHA against religious discrimination. The court affirmed summary judgment for defendant and held that, even assuming that section 3604(a) and (b) applied to defendant's homeless shelters, the FHA's religious exemption permitted the practices challenged by plaintiffs in this case. Therefore, the court expressed no view on the merits of defendant's arguments about the proper scope of section 3604(a) and (b) and the proper definition of "residence" in section 3602(b). The court also affirmed summary judgment on the sex discrimination claim because there was no evidence to establish that defendant treated the men in its parallel drug treatment program any differently than it treated the women and the interference, coercion, or intimidation claim claim because plaintiffs had not exercised a right granted to them by section 3604.

Petitioner sought, inter alia, to reopen his immigration proceedings by raising challenges to, or seeking an exception to, the April 26, 2005, deadline to seek relief under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 C.F.R. 1003.44. The court held that section 1003.44's deadline to file special motions to reopen was a constitutionally-sound procedural rule and that absent some exceptional circumstances, not present here, petitioners that missed the deadline were not entitled to relief from that deadline.

Day-laborer organizations challenged a city anti-solicitation ordinance that barred individuals from standing on a street or highway and soliciting, or attempting to solicit, business, or contributions from an occupant of any motor vehicle. The court agreed with the day laborers that the ordinance was a facially unconstitutional restriction on speech where the ordinance failed to satisfy the narrow tailoring element of the Supreme Court's time, place, and manner test and where the ordinance was not narrowly tailored because it regulated significantly more speech than was necessary to achieve the city's purpose of improving traffic safety and traffic flow at two major intersections. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

Costco appealed the district court's order granting class certification in a class action brought by Shirley Ellis, Leah Horstman, and Elaine Sasaki (plaintiffs), alleging that Costco's promotional practices discriminated based on gender. The court held that at least one plaintiff (Sasaki) had standing to bring suit. The court also held that the district court abused its discretion by applying the wrong legal standard in its analyses of commonality and typicality under Rule 23(a). Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's findings on those issues and remanded for application of the correct standard. The court further held that, although the district court correctly determined that Sasaki was an adequate class representative, the court held that Ellis and Horstman were inadequate representatives for pursuing injunctive relief, given that they were former employees, and remanded for the district court to consider whether they were adequate representatives if a (b)(3) class was certified. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's certification of a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and remanded for reconsideration.