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

A panel of the Ninth Circuit previously affirmed Barry Bonds’s conviction of one count of obstruction of justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1503. The conviction arose from Bonds’s testimony before a grand jury about his suspected use of steroids. The conviction was based on Bonds’s rambling, non-responsive answer to a simple question. In this revised opinion, the Ninth Circuit vacated the conviction and sentence for obstruction of justice, holding that because there was insufficient evidence that Bonds’s statement that the jury found to be obstructive was material, his conviction for obstruction of justice was not supported by the record. View "United States v. Bonds" on Justia Law

Defendant, who operated as a small-time pimp, was convicted of sex-trafficking offenses in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA). Defendant appealed his convictions as to four counts for violations of the TVPA, arguing, among other things, that the district court misstated the law in its jury instructions. A panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) when Congress used the language “in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce” in the TVPA, it intended to exercise its full powers under the Commerce Clause; (2) any individual instance of conduct regulated by the TVPA need only have a de minimis effect on interstate commerce, and accordingly, the district court did not err when it instructed the jury that “any act that crosses state lines is ‘in’ interstate commerce” and “an act or transaction that is economic in nature” and “affects the flow of money in the stream of commerce to any degree ‘affects’ interstate commerce”; and (3) the jury instruction did not essentially direct a verdict on the element of interstate commerce. View "United States v. Walls" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of illegal reentry. The district court entered an order revoking supervised release based on that conviction. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court erred in rejecting his challenges to three of the government’s peremptory strikes under Batson v. Kentucky. A panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred in failing to reach the third step of the Batson framework without evaluating the persuasiveness of the government’s facially neutral reason for its peremptory strikes of three Hispanic individuals in the venire, but Defendant failed to show purposeful discrimination, and the record did not support such a finding on de novo review; and (2) the district court’s supplemental jury instruction, which clarified that the insanity defense would not apply if, while Defendant was illegally present in the United States, Defendant was sane for a long enough period to have left the country, was substantially correct and not coercive. View "United States v. Alvarez-Ulloa" on Justia Law

Defendants were sisters who each pleaded guilty to two counts of sex trafficking of children in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1591. Defendants’ sentences included enhancements under U.S.S.G. 2G1.3(b)(3)(4)(A), because sex acts were actually committed by the minors, and under U.S.S.G. 2G1.3(b)(2)(B), for undue influence. Defendants challenged the application of both enhancements in these consolidated appeals. A panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the sentences, holding (1) the district court’s application of U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(4)(A) did not constitute double counting because “commission of a sex act or sexual contact” is not an element of a conviction under section 1591; and (2) the district court properly applied an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) for undue influence because the record supported the district court’s factual finding of undue influence for all three minors, and evidence of the minor victims’ willingness did not compel reversal of the district court’s finding. View "United States v. Hornbuckle" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of twelve felony counts related to a complex mortgage fraud scheme. Defendant filed two motions for a new trial, arguing that the government violated Brady v. Maryland by withholding material exculpatory evidence and violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. The district court denied the motions, concluding that Defendant’s rights under Brady and the Fourth Amendment had not been violated. A panel of the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s orders denying Defendant’s motions for a new trial and remanded, holding that the district court (1) abused its discretion in denying Defendant’s requests for an evidentiary hearing and for discovery; (2) should reconsider Defendant’s Brady claims on an open record, in conjunction with the additional disclosure with which Defendant sought to augment the record on appeal; and (3) erred in concluding that an employee’s copying of documents from Defendant’s real estate and investment offices was not a search implicating the Fourth Amendment. View "United States v. Mazzarella" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possessing stolen mail. The district court increased Defendant’s offense level by four pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(2)(B) because the offense involved fifty or more victims. The district court relied on Sentencing Guidelines commentary providing that the term “victim” encompasses “any person who was the intended recipient, or addressee, of” undelivered U.S. mail. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding that the district court did not err in relying on the definition of “victim” in the commentary, as the special definition of that term regarding the theft of undelivered mail is consistent with the use of that term in the context of section 2B1.1. View "United States v. Becerra" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal re-entry and was on supervised release at the time he attempted to re-enter the United States illegally. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to attempted illegal re-entry. The court imposed a sentence of fifteen months for violating the terms of supervised release to run consecutively to the twelve months imposed for attempted illegal re-entry. Defendant appealed the sentence imposed for violating the terms of his supervised release. A panel of the Ninth Circuit vacated the sentence imposed for violating the terms of supervised release and remanded for resentencing, holding (1) Fed. R. Crim. P. 32, which requires the district court to solicit the government’s position with respect to sentencing, should be used to “fill in the gap” in Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1, which is silent with respect to the question of whether the government must be given an opportunity to make a statement regarding revocation sentencing; and (2) the district court in this case erred by failing to give the government an opportunity to make such a statement during the sentencing portion of Defendant’s revocation proceeding, and the error was not harmless. View "United States v. Urrutia-Contreras" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal re-entry in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. After Defendant was sentenced, he appealed, arguing (1) the district court plainly erred by applying a sixteen-level enhancement based on a prior aggravated assault conviction; and (2) the government improperly withheld a motion for a third-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility on the ground that Defendant refused to waive his appeal rights. The Ninth Circuit vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding (1) in light of a post-sentencing amendment to the application notes to U.S.S.G. 3E1.1, the Government improperly withheld a motion for a third-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility; and (2) the district court improperly applied the sixteen-level enhancement on the ground that Defendant’s prior conviction for aggravated assault in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-1204(A)(2) was a “crime of violence,” as the documents submitted by the government did not establish that Defendant admitted the elements of section 13-1203(A)(2), the subsection of the Arizona statute defining “assault” that is a match to the generic “crime of violence.” View "United States v. Sahagun-Gallegos" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted and sentenced for conspiracy to obstruct justice, accessory after the fact to mail fraud and securities law violations, altering documents to influence a federal investigation, and aiding and abetting false testimony at an SEC deposition. A panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err at sentencing by applying both the “Broker-Dealer” enhancement and the “Special Skill” enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines; (2) the district court did not err in calculating loss and victim amounts, as required under the Sentencing Guidelines; (3) Defendant was competent to waive his right to a jury trial, and his waiver was knowing and intelligent; and (4) the district court did not plainly err in (a) excluding a non-lawyer’s testimony reciting facts and the legal conclusion that Defendant did not break the law; (b) determining that the district court was capable of understanding an expert’s opinion regarding Defendant’s professional and ethical duties as an attorney; and (c) admitting coconspirator nonhearsay testimony. View "United States v. Tamman" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of drug and firearm offenses and sentenced to 168 months’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in sentencing him as a career offender because it erroneously concluded that his prior conviction for second degree escape was a “crime of violence” as that term is defined by the Sentencing Guidelines. A panel of the Ninth Circuit vacated the sentence, holding (1) Defendant’s prior conviction for second degree escape in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. 710-1021 is not a categorical crime of violence under the career offender guideline; (2) assuming, without deciding, that section 710-1021 is divisible into three separate crimes, application of the modified categorical approach demonstrates that Defendant was convicted of the “escape from custody” version of the crime; and (3) the crime of escape from custody is not a crime of violence under the career offender guideline. Remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Simmons" on Justia Law