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

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion for early termination of supervised release. Defendant claimed that the district court applied the wrong legal standard by refusing to grant early termination unless defendant proved undue hardship caused by his supervised release. The court concluded that, under the broad legal standard for granting early termination, it was not an abuse of discretion to consider as one factor among others whether continued supervised release posed an undue hardship. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying an incorrect legal standard. However, the single explanation in the record for rejecting defendant's request for early termination for supervised release did not provide a reason for rejecting defendant's arguments or explain why his request should be denied under the applicable legal standard. The only explanation in the record was the district court's order stating that defendant did not demonstrate undue hardship caused by supervised release. This statement, standing alone, was not a sufficient explanation. Moreover, the absence of undue hardship did not explain why the relevant 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors did not weigh in defendant's favor. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Emmett" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession with intent to distribute at least 50 grams of cocaine base . On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion for a reduction of sentence. The court concluded that, because defendant was sentenced before August 3, 2010, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA), Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372, did not affect his sentence. The court held that Amendment 750 did not apply to or help defendants who were sentenced as career offenders under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1. Because defendant was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1, the retroactive amendments to the drug guidelines under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1 did not qualify him for sentence reduction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Charles" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was convicted at his first trial of first degree murder in which the prosecutor relied on evidence obtained in violation of his Miranda rights, and after the conviction was reversed he was again convicted, this time without the use of the illegally obtained evidence. Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for damages as result of his conviction for first degree murder in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. The court held that plaintiff's section 1983 claim against Sheriff Barnes for the Fifth Amendment violation was not barred by Heck v. Humphrey. Under Heck and Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, plaintiff's Fifth Amendment claim was not time-barred, and plaintiff may be able to show that he is entitled to damages, especially nominal damages, for the Miranda violation. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of that claim. The court held that plaintiff properly pleaded a claim of Monell liability against the Sheriff's Department, and that the Sheriff's Department was subject to suit under section 1983 for its investigative activities. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of this claim. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim against the District Attorney's Office, but instructed it to grant plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to state a claim against District Attorney Murphy. View "Jackson v. Barnes, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with two counts of transmitting threatening interstate communications and one count of transmitting threatening communications by United States mail. The district court determined that defendant was not competent to stand trial and authorized the government to medicate him involuntarily to render him competent to face the charges against him. The court could not conclude that the district court clearly erred in determining that involuntary medication was in defendant's best medical interest when the potential harms and benefits of the treatment were viewed against the seriousness of his condition. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's involuntary medication order and dismissed as moot defendant's appeal of the district court's involuntary medication order. View "United States v. Gillenwater, II" on Justia Law

Defendant, an attorney, appealed his conviction for attempted extortion and endeavoring to obstruct justice. The court concluded that where a nonviolent threat to obtain property was not, by its nature, inherently wrongful, a court must first consider whether the threat, as actually used in the case at issue (the "means"), is wrongful, without regard to the property demanded by the defendant (the "ends"). The court concluded that, although the district court's instruction was erroneous because it essentially read the "wrongful" element out of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951(b)(2), the error was harmless. Because defendant's threats were wrongful under the Hobbs Act, the court need not reach the question whether a claim of right defense was available in this context. Even if available, such a claim would do nothing to shield defendant from conviction of attempted extortion. Accordingly, the district court did not err by not providing a claim of right instruction. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Villalobos" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for assault on a federal officer and illegally entering the United States. The court vacated the conviction for assault on a federal officer and remanded the case for a new trial. Defendant was deported during the pendency of the appeal. The government requested that the court affirm the conviction, without prejudice to a later request by him to vacate the conviction, should he return to the United States or waive his right to be physically present at retrial. The court saw no reason to apply United States v. Aguilar-Reyes, which only concerned resentencing. Given the government's authority to permit defendant to return for retrial, and counsel's assurances that defendant would be willing to do so, this case was unlikely to languish for an indefinite period before the district court, should the government choose to retry defendant. More importantly, defendant's conviction for assault on a federal officer will have been reversed, unless and until he should be retried, he must be presumed innocent of that charge. Accordingly, the court vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. View "United States v. Barrios-Siguenza" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her convictions and sentence for wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering. Defendant and her then-husband were involved in a scheme to defraud customers by tricking them into making advanced payments for high-end kitchen appliances which were never delivered. The court rejected defendant's claim that the Faretta colloquy was rendered constitutionally deficient by the omission of an explicit warning about a potential conflict of interest, particularly because plaintiff's husband had no involvement in defendant's individual self-representation at this stage of the proceedings; defendant's waiver of the right to counsel was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent; during trial, defendant's right to self-representation was not violated when she adopted the district court's suggestion to permit her husband to conduct her direct and re-direct examination; the evidence was sufficient to support her convictions for wire and mail fraud; the district court properly instructed the jury regarding the mens rea for these offenses; the evidence was insufficient to support defendant's convictions on two money laundering counts; and the jury was improperly instructed as to one of these charges. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing in light of the reversal of her convictions on the money laundering counts. View "United States v. French" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to illegal reentry to the United States. The court concluded that defendant's 1996 conviction for assaulting a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. 111(a) did not, categorically, qualify as a crime of violence because section 111(a) felony criminalizes a broader swath of conduct covered by U.S.S.G. 2L1.2's definition. The district court erred in applying the crime of violence enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing without the enhancement. View "United States v. Dominguez-Maroyoqui" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged his conviction and sentence for being a deported alien found in the United States. The court concluded that the admission into evidence during his criminal trial of a Notice to Appear did not violate defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause where the statements in the Notice were not testimonial; the court rejected defendant's Confrontation Clause challenge to the admissibility of the certifications of authenticity for defendant's A-File documents; the district court did not err in calculating defendant's advisory range under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) where his prior conviction of attempted murder and kipping under California law qualified as crimes of violence under the applicable categorical approach; and the court reaffirmed the continuing vitality of the court's precedents barring consideration of affirmative defenses as part of the categorical approach. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Albino-Loe" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of two counts of aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1028A(a)(1). The court concluded that the district court constructively amended the indictment when it declined to name the specific victims whose identities the indictment accused defendant of stealing. Accordingly, the court reversed the convictions and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Ward" on Justia Law