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

Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment. On appeal, defendant argued that the settlement conference he voluntarily participated in violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 because the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Davila prohibits any judicial involvement in plea negotiation, even when the judicial participation is both requested by the defendant and sanctioned by the district court’s local rules. The court agreed with defendant's claim, concluding that Davila makes clear that Rule 11(c)(1) imposes a categorical bar on judicial participation in plea negotiations. However, because defendant failed to object at the time to judicial participation, the court reviewed his claim for plain error. In this case, defendant failed to establish that the alleged error affected his substantial rights because the record is bereft of evidence indicating that he suffered any prejudice due to the magistrate judge’s participation in the settlement conference. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Myers" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 372, False Claims Act conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. 286, theft from an Indian tribe receiving federal funding in violation of 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(1)(A), and federal income tax evasion in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7201. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's application of the “sophisticated means” sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(10)(C). The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the enhancement where, in this case, the coordinated and repetitive steps that defendant took to transfer money from the Po’Ka project to his personal bank account are comparable in complexity and sophistication to the schemes held to warrant a “sophisticated means” enhancement in both the court's precedent and persuasive authority from other circuits. View "United States v. Augare" on Justia Law

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief from a state-court order committing him indefinitely for involuntary treatment as a sexually violent predator, in accordance with California law. The court concluded that the California Court of Appeal did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law to petitioner’s equal protection claim by determining that sexually violent predators are not similarly situated to other civilly committed offenders. The court rejected petitioner's argument that individuals who are committed under the Lanterman-Petris Short (LPS) Act, California Welfare and Institutions Code 5000 et seq., are similarly situated to those committed under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), California Welfare and Institutions Code 6604. Further, petitioner's due process challenge must fail because no Supreme Court precedent prohibited amendments to the SVPA to change the burden to the detainee to establish the right to release. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief to petitioner. View "Taylor v. San Diego Cnty." on Justia Law

Defendant, a contractor, appealed his conviction of two counts of conversion and misapplication of funds from a tribal organization, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1163. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his involvement in projects he performed for the Navajo Nation. The court held that, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1163, funds paid from an Indian tribal organization to a contractor continue to be “property belonging to any Indian tribal organization,” as long as the tribal organization maintains sufficient supervision and control of disbursed funds and their ultimate use. In this case, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could find (a) that the funds misappropriated or converted by defendant belonged to a tribal organization, even if the funds were considered reimbursement for work already completed; and (b) that NHA had sufficient supervision and control of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA), 25 U.S.C. 4101-4212, funds. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of misappropriating tribal funds. The court further concluded that the district court did not err by requiring a forensic auditor to be certified as an expert witness and compelling expert disclosures, and the district court did not err by allowing the auditor's summary charts to be admitted into evidence. Finally, the district court did not commit error in instructing the jury and the district court did not err in applying two sentencing enhancements. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Aubrey" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and the district court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 113 months imprisonment. Defendant filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) asking the district court to reduce his sentence based on Amendments 782 and 788. The district court denied the motion. As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant's motion for an extension of time to file an appeal and the notice was timely. The court held that a district court cannot apply a retroactive amendment to reduce an already imposed sentence prior to that amendment’s effective date. The court also held that the Commission’s determination of the appropriate effective date for a retroactive amendment is not invalid simply because the Commission made reference to prisoners’ rehabilitative needs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Navarro" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of perjury for testifying in a traffic court proceeding that he was not the driver of a car that had been stopped for speeding and whose driver had been ticketed. On appeal, the State challenged the district court's grant of petitioner's habeas corpus petition. The court agreed with the district court that the state appellate court unreasonably applied Ashe v. Swenson when it held that petitioner’s acquittal in traffic court did not bar the subsequent perjury prosecution. The court held that the principle of collateral estoppel embodied in the Fifth Amendment’s protection against double jeopardy, as clearly established in Ashe, precludes relitigation of ultimate issues that were necessarily decided in a prior proceeding between the parties. The traffic court necessarily decided that petitioner was not the driver of the speeding car. This issue was critical to both the traffic court and perjury proceedings. Therefore, the State is precluded by the Double Jeopardy Clause from bringing the perjury prosecution. The court affirmed the judgment. View "Wilkinson v. Gingrich" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of obstruction of justice after his bank records were subpoenaed in connection with an investigation to rig bids and he installed a program designed to wipe hard drives clean of all information. The Government appealed the district court’s order granting defendant’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion where the district court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. The court concluded that there was no evidence, direct or circumstantial, that the emails in question were in fact double deleted. The court also concluded that the evidence was insufficient to convict defendant for single deleting emails where the factual circumstance demonstrate that pressing the delete key in this context serves only to move an email from one file folder to another. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Katakis" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of assault with a firearm and child endangerment, appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas petition, on the basis of alleged violations of his Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights. The court held that it was not unreasonable for the California Court of Appeal to conclude that there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to convict petitioner of the assault with a firearm and child endangerment charges. The court also held that it was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law to conclude that California’s revised determinate sentencing law, which provides trial courts with discretion to decide among three sentences, is constitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey. Therefore, the court rejected petitioner's challenges to his sentence. The court affirmed the judgment View "Creech v. Frauenheim" on Justia Law

Defendant, during his time at the Anchorage Correctional Complex, repeatedly sexually assaulted other prisoners. Defendant was convicted of four counts of aggravated sexual abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2241 and three counts of abusive sexual contact in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2244. The court concluded that 18 U.S.C. 2241, 2242, and 2244 are not facially unconstitutional; they are “a ‘necessary and proper’ means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned, and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned but who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others.” 18 U.S.C. 2241, 2242, and 2244 are plainly constitutional as applied to an individual in federal custody who is being held in a state facility pursuant to a contract with a federal agency. The court held that in prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. 2241, 2242, and 2244, the district court may determine as a matter of law whether the facility at which the alleged crime took place is one “in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency.” Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Mujahid" on Justia Law

Defendants challenged a policy in which judges of the Southern District of California have deferred to the recommendation of the United States Marshals to place pretrial detainees in full shackle restraints for most appearances before a judge, including arraignments, unless a judge specifically requests the restraints be removed in a particular case. The court held that a full restraint policy ought to be justified by a commensurate need. It cannot rest primarily on the economic strain of the jailer to provide adequate safeguards. The court reiterated that it recognized in United States v. Howard that such a policy must be adopted with “adequate justification of its necessity.” In this case, the Southern District has failed to provide adequate justification for its restrictive shackling policy. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's orders and remanded. View "United States v. Sanchez-Gomez" on Justia Law