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

Defendant appealed his conviction for being an alien found in the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. The court concluded that section 1326 did not require the government to prove that an order of removal or deportation was issued where the alien has been deported or removed; the district court did not err by admitting defendant's Verification of Removal where a verification of removal comports with the requirements of the Confrontation Clause and is admissible under the public records exception to the rule against hearsay; in this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the verification where the prosecution properly authenticated the Verification of Removal by calling a deportation officer as a witness; the district court clearly erred by admitting a border patrol agent's lay opinion on the ultimate question before the jury because the agent's testimony did not satisfy the personal knowledge requirement of Federal Rule of Evidence 602; the erroneous admission of the agent's lay opinion did not affect defendant's substantial rights and it did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial; and therefore, the court affirmed the judgment after finding no reversible error. View "United States v. Francisco" on Justia Law

Defendant, twelve years old at the time of the offense, appealed his conviction for sexually abusing his six year old cousin. The court concluded that the certification that the government filed in the district court met the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 5032 by certifying that "the juvenile court or the state does not have jurisdiction over the juvenile with respect to the alleged act of juvenile delinquency," even though it was missing a page and did not include a statement of the government's substantial federal interest in this case. Guided by the United States v. Kim factors, considering the totality of the circumstances of defendant's detention, and taking into account defendant's status as a juvenile, the court concluded that a reasonable person in defendant's position would not have felt free to terminate the questioning and leave the police station. Therefore, defendant was "in custody" during his interrogation by the detective. Defendant was never read his Miranda rights and his inculpatory statements during his interrogation by the detective must be suppressed. Defendant's younger brother, who was seven at the time of trial and five at the time of the offense, was competent to testify as a witness. The evidence at trial, including defendant's inculpatory statements, was not insufficient to support the conviction. The court reversed and remanded, however, because the inculpatory statements were obtained in violation of defendant's Miranda rights and should have been suppressed. View "United States v. IMM" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possessing an unregistered machine gun and sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment. On appeal, the government conceded that the district court miscalculated defendant's base offense level. The court vacated and remanded for resentencing, holding that the district court also erred in applying a six-level enhancement for multiple firearms under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(1)(C) on the basis of other weapons found at defendant's home. View "United States v. Vargem" on Justia Law

Defendants Guillen-Cervantes and Castillo were convicted of conspiring to transport and harbor illegal aliens. On appeal, Castillo challenged her forfeiture judgment, contending that it violated her due process rights under the Fifth Amendment because she was unable to seek contribution from other members of the conspiracy. The court held that Castillo possessed no right to contribution under existing federal law. The court rejected Castillo's request that the court find an implied right under 18 U.S.C. 982 or forge a new right to contribution in this case, and to hold that the deprivation of that right as a consequence of her forfeiture order violated her Fifth Amendment guarantee to due process. Therefore, the court concluded that Castillo's due process claim failed because she could not demonstrate a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest of which she has been deprived. Accordingly, the court affirmed the forfeiture judgment against Castillo. View "United States v. Guillen-Cervantes" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of felony murder and other offenses, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The court concluded that the state trial court's decision to credit the prosecutor's race-neutral explanation for striking an African-American venireman, when viewed in light of the totality of the relevant facts, was not an objectively unreasonable application of Batson v. Kentucky. The court also concluded that the state trial court's decision to admit a codefendant's hearsay statement was not an objectively unreasonable application of the Ohio v. Roberts framework. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Mayes v. Premo" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a prisoner suffering from schizoaffective disorder and who is proceeding pro se, sought damages from California prison officials under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff challenged the district court's denial of his request for a guardian ad litem because the Pro Bono Coordinator advised the court that no one was available to undertake the representation. In these consolidated appeals, at issue was whether the district court erred, under Rule 17(c)(2), by declining to appoint a guardian ad litem and instead staying plaintiff's cases indefinitely until he is found to be restored to competency. Determining that the court had jurisdiction over the appeal as a final decision under 28 U.S.C. 1291, or in the alternative, as a collateral order pursuant to Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., the court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by staying plaintiff's cases until he was found competent (if ever). Such a stay order failed to adequately protect plaintiff's interest and thus did not constitute "another appropriate order" under Rule 17(c). Instead, it amounted to a dismissal with prejudice. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded with instructions. View "Davis v. Walker" on Justia Law

Defendant, a native and citizen of Mexico, appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment charging him with attempted reentry after a prior removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. The court concluded that defendant's removal as an alien "not admitted or paroled" as alleged in the Notice to Appear was not "fundamentally unfair" where the termination of his temporary resident status returned him to the status of an inadmissible alien subject to removal; defendant was foreclosed from demonstrating prejudice because INA 212(h) did not provide relief for aliens removed for illegal presence in the United States without admission or parole in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), the sole basis of defendant's removal; and defendant did not preserve his claim that the IJ failed to advise him of his right to counsel and/or obtain a valid waiver of the right to counsel. Finally, the district court's imposition of a below-Guidelines fine was not procedurally erroneous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Hernandez-Arias" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of two murders and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court concluded that the state court's determination that media coverage was not constitutionally prejudicial was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent; the state court's rejection of petitioner's challenge to the jury venire was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent where the prosecutor provided race-neutral explanations for the exercise of his peremptory challenges against two Hispanic potential jurors; because the Supreme Court has eschewed claims predicated on the unavailability of immaterial evidence, the state court's denial of petitioner's belated request to inspect a sanitized crime scene was also not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court precedent; the evidence did not support petitioner's request for jury instructions on voluntary intoxication and second degree murder and the state court's denial of relief was consistent with Supreme Court precedent; the state court meticulously weighed the mitigating circumstances against the aggravating factors before imposing a death sentence and its determination was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent; the state court's decisions denying relief on the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington; the district court correctly resolved the claims of evidence presented to the state courts; no cognizable Martinez v. Ryan claims were asserted; and the court denied habeas relief as to all claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Roger Murray v. Schriro" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of two murders and sentenced to death, appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition. The court affirmed the denial of petitioner's Batson v. Kentucky claim where the state court's decision regarding two potential Hispanic jurors was not an unreasonable determination of the facts where the prosecutor proffered race-neutral explanations for his strike of the jurors; affirmed the ineffective assistance of counsel claim where the record did not support a finding that the state court's decision regarding the adequacy of counsel's performance in conducting the mitigation investigation was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts or an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington; and denied petitioner's motion to expand the Certificate of Appealability where such claims were futile. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Robert Murray v. Schriro" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's decision finding him inadmissible and denying his application for cancellation of removal. The court held that the conviction under which petitioner was convicted, California Health & Safety Code 11377(a), was a divisible statute under Descamps v. United States, and therefore, the court applied the modified categorical approach in analyzing his prior convictions. The court concluded that the government satisfied its burden in proving that petitioner was twice convicted of methamphetamine, a controlled substance listed in the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 802. Accordingly, the court concluded that the BIA did not err in finding petitioner inadmissible based on his prior convictions. However, the court remanded because the BIA failed to address petitioner's due process claims regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel and bias by the IJ. Finally, the court dismissed petitioner's unexhausted equal protection claim for lack of jurisdiction. View "Coronado v. Holder" on Justia Law