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

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for panel rehearing, withdrew its memorandum disposition filed December 14, 2016, denied a petition for rehearing en banc as moot, and filed this opinion reversing defendant's conviction for illegal reentry.After defendant was convicted of conspiracy to export defense articles without a license and was removed from the United States, he returned and was convicted of illegal reentry. The panel held that defendant was not originally removable as charged, and so could not be convicted of illegal reentry. In this case, because the statute was overbroad and indivisible, defendant's conviction under 22 U.S.C. 2778 could not serve as a proper predicate for removal—either as an aggravated felony or a firearms offense. Accordingly, the court remanded with instructions to dismiss the indictment. View "United States v. Ochoa" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of habeas relief to petitioner, who was convicted of second degree murder. Petitioner claimed that there was improper outside influence on the jury. The en banc court held that the state appellate court's decision was contrary to clearly established Supreme Court law in Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140, 149, and Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 229. In denying relief because petitioner's evidence did not prove prejudice, the state court acted contrary to Mattox and Remmer; it was error to rely on the very same statement from Juror 10's declaration both to raise the presumption of prejudice and to rebut it; and the state court denied petitioner a hearing on prejudice under the wrong legal standard. Accordingly, the en banc court remanded with instructions to hold a hearing to determine the circumstances of Juror 10's misconduct, the impact on the jury, and whether it was prejudicial. View "Godoy v. Spearman" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's 21 month sentence after he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation. The panel held that the district court did not err by applying a 16 level enhancement after determining that defendant's prior aggravated assault conviction in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated 39-13-102 was a crime of violence for purposes of USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), because it entailed the use or threatened use of physical force. The panel also held that defendant waived his ability to contest the revocation of his supervised release and thus the appeal must be dismissed. View "United States v. Perez-Silvan" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's 54 month sentence after he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation. The panel held that the district court did not err by concluding that defendant's conviction for aggravated assault under Texas Penal Code 22.01 and 22.02 was a crime of violence for purposes of USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), because both means of committing aggravated assault entailed the use of violent, physical force. Finally, defendant waived his ability to contest the district court's revocation of his supervised release and the appeal must be dismissed. View "United States v. Calvillo-Palacios" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence, holding that his prior third degree robbery conviction under Oregon law was not a violent felony for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). The panel explained that the term "physical force" as used in the Oregon statute is not coextensive with the term's use in the ACCA. View "United States v. Strickland" on Justia Law

For Fourth Amendment purposes, mandatory supervision is more akin to parole than probation. While defendant served the last year of his sentence on mandatory supervision, he agreed to submit to warrantless, suspicionless searches of his person, his residence, and any premises under his control. At issue was whether a warrantless, suspicionless search of a hotel room defendant rented with his girlfriend violated the Fourth Amendment. Applying the Fourth Amendment analysis applicable to parolees, the Ninth Circuit held that the officers had probable cause to believe that the hotel room constituted "premises" under defendants' control. Therefore, there was no Fourth Amendment violation and the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the evidence found in his hotel room. Finally, the panel rejected defendant's contention that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a supervised release condition requiring him to submit warrantless, suspicionless search conditions. In this case, defendant had adequate notice of the condition and the district court did not abuse its discretion where the facts justified the district court's belief that defendant posed an exceptionally high risk of re-offending. View "United States v. Cervantes" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess marijuana, distribution of marijuana, maintaining a drug-involved premises, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The convictions stemmed from defendant's involvement in an operation of purported medical-marijuana collective storefronts. The panel held that defendant was not entitled to remand for an evidentiary hearing on his state law compliance; the district court erred by giving an overly strong anti-nullification jury instruction, but the error was harmless; the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a state search warrant; the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion for a Franks hearing; the district court did not err by declining to instruct the jury on defendant's joint ownership defense; the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering the government's late-filed objections to the presentence report; and defendant's 211 month sentence was substantively and procedurally reasonable. The panel found defendant's remaining challenges on appeal were without merit. View "United States v. Kleinman" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed defendant's conviction for transportation of firearms into his state of residence. The panel held that, given the district court's broad jury instruction and the government’s theory of the case, it was not clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury actually found that defendant had willfully committed the charged conduct. The broad jury instruction, combined with the evidence of the commission of later crimes and the government's argument to the jury, resulted in significant prejudice to defendant. The panel explained that the rule from the common law requires that a defendant's mental state and act coincide for a conviction to be valid. Neither Bryan v. United States nor 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and 924 deviate from this rule. View "United States v. Salvador Hernandez" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to make, print, or publish "any notice or advertisement seeking or offering" child pornography. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his membership in an online bulletin board where members shared child pornography. In this case, the district court effectively ruled that, as a matter of law, the closed nature of the bulletin board was irrelevant to the question of whether an "advertisement" or a "notice" had been shown, and thus could not properly be considered by the jury. The panel held that the district court violated defendant's fundamental right to assistance of counsel and right to present a defense, and it relieved the prosecution of its burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Because defendant's Sixth Amendment right to present his defense was violated, the court remanded for a new trial. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit held that the search of claimant's vehicle following two coordinated traffic stops violated the Constitution and affirmed the district court's order granting claimant's motion to suppress. In this case, claimant's roadside detention was unreasonably prolonged in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The subsequent dog sniff and search of the vehicle followed directly in an unbroken causal chain of events from that constitutional violation. Consequently, the seized currency was the fruit of the poisonous tree and was properly suppressed under the exclusionary rule. View "United States v. Gorman" on Justia Law