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

The government appealed the dismissal of defendant's indictment for unlawful reentry. Defendant had pleaded guilty to "conspiracy to commit the crime of burglary" in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. 199.480.205.060(1) and was subsequently ordered removed as an undocumented alien convicted of an aggravated felony. Applying the methodology prescribed by the Supreme Court for defining generic offenses for categorical purposes, the generic federal definition of conspiracy, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(U), conditioned conviction on performance of an overt act in pursuit of the conspiratorial objective. Because Nevada's conspiracy statute criminalized a broader range of conduct than the properly determined generic definition of conspiracy, defendant's conviction did not qualify as an aggravated felony. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's determination that defendant's prior removal order was constitutionally inadequate because she was denied her right to seek discretionary relief from removal. View "United States v. Garcia-Santana" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). On appeal, defendant argued that neither his prior Nevada conspiracy conviction nor his Nevada kidnapping conviction was a violent felony under the ACCA. The court concluded that a Nevada conviction for robbery was a violent felony because it created a serious risk of harm that was comparable to the risk posed by burglary. The court also concluded that second degree kidnapping in Nevada categorically involved a serious risk that physical force could be used in the course of committing the offense and that this risk was roughly similar to the risk involved in burglary. Accordingly, the court concluded that both offenses were violent felonies under the ACCA and, therefore, the court affirmed the sentencing enhancement under the ACCA because defendant had previously been convicted of three violent felonies. View "United States v. Chandler" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry. Defendant had a prior state court conviction for attempted rape in the fourth degree under Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, 531-532, 770. At issue was whether Delaware's criminal attempt statutes constituted a federal generic attempt crime for purposes of imposing an enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines. Because Delaware's statutory definition of "substantial step" was materially different from and encompassed more conduct that the federal generic definition, the Delaware attempt statute criminalized more conduct than the federal generic attempt offense. Therefore, defendant's prior state conviction for an attempt offense did not qualify as a federal generic attempt under the Taylor categorical approach. In light of this statutory definition, the court concluded that the district court erred in imposing the enhancement. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded, concluding that it need not address defendant's remaining arguments. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Monterroso" on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty in Oregon state court to three counts of compelling prostitution, three counts of rape, three counts of sodomy, and one count of sexual abuse. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's determination that he failed to demonstrate actual innocence of the compelling prostitution counts under Schlup v. Delo. The court concluded that petitioner was actually innocent of compelling prostitution where he induced his daughter to have sex with him, not a third party, in exchange for money and cigarettes. The court held that his untimeliness as to these counts was excused. However, petitioner failed to demonstrate actual innocence under Schlup with respect to the other counts on which he was convicted and his petition was therefore untimely as to those counts. Accordingly, the court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. View "Vosgien v. Kilmer" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and three counts of health care fraud. On appeal, defendants challenged their sentences. The court held that, in health care fraud cases, the amount billed to an insurer shall constitute prima facie evidence of intended loss for sentencing purposes. If not rebutted, this evidence shall constitute sufficient evidence to establish the intended loss by a preponderance of the evidence. However, the parties may introduce additional evidence to support arguments that the amount billed overestimated or understated the defendant's intent. In this instance, the court vacated defendants' sentences on the issue of intended loss because the record left the court uncertain as to what the district court understood the law to be with respect to calculating intended loss for sentencing purposes and there was evidence suggesting that defendants may have been aware that Medicare only payed a fixed amount. When viewed in conjunction with the evidence that defendants were the only two named physicians on the clinic's sign, the documents were sufficient to support the district court's finding that Defendant Popov's bills to Medicare were foreseeable to Defendant Prakash. The court vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Popov" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release by illegally reentering the country after he had been deported. The court held that the provisions in Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal procedure pertaining to initial appearances were inapplicable when a defendant was in custody on underlying criminal charges at the time the revocation proceedings were initiated. Therefore, the magistrate judge did not err in failing to inform defendant of the allegations against him at the initial proceeding. The court also concluded that defendant was provided proper notice of the alleged violations of his supervised release. Finally, defendant's revocation sentence of 21 months was reasonable and defendant was not entitled to the protections of Boykin v. Alabama. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Vasquez-Perez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for receipt of material involving the sexual exploitation of minors. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that his redacted confession was not misleading to the jury and, therefore, that the Rule of Completeness did not require admission of the full statement into evidence; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to instruct the jury on possession; the court joined its sister circuits in holding that it did not matter, for purposes of the sentencing enhancement, whether someone else actually downloaded a file from the defendant's computer; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it applied a two-level distribution enhancement in calculating defendant's sentence; and the district court did not misread the Sentencing Guidelines, which explicitly authorized a distribution enhancement for defendants convicted of receiving, transporting, shipping, soliciting, or advertising material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Vallejos" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of offenses related to the attempted murder of his wife, appealed the denial of his federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254(a). The court concluded that the state trial court did not unreasonably conclude that Juror No. 6 had credibly testified that he would be a fair and impartial juror; Juror No. 6's consideration of extrinsic evidence did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict on Counts II and IV; the record supported the California Court of Appeal's finding that the guilty jury verdict was unanimous on Counts III and IV and its decision was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding; and because defendant failed to state a due process claim in violation of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, the court did not reach defendant's final argument. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Smith v. Swarthout" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of maliciously damaging the real property of the United States by fire. On appeal, the government challenged defendants' sentences. Defendants, ranchers, set fires on their property that spread to nearby public lands. The court concluded that the government did not waive its right to appeal where the principles of governing the formation and interpretation of plea agreements left no room for implied waivers. The court held that the district court illegally sentenced defendants to terms of imprisonment less than the statutory minimum. Although the district court attempted to justify lesser sentences on Eighth Amendment grounds, sentencing defendants to five years of imprisonment, the statutory minimum, would not have been unconstitutional. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "United States v. Hammond" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of charges related to his participation in a scheme involving the fraudulent issuance of airline passenger tickets. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's partial denial of his Motion to Clarify Conditions of Supervised Release and the Amount and Current Status of Restitution. Determining that the district court retained jurisdiction to calculate the amount of restitution owing, the court concluded that, in general, restitution and forfeiture are two separate and distinct parts of a criminal sentence, and a defendant did not have a right to have forfeited funds applied to a restitution obligation or to have the value of the forfeited assets "frozen" at the moment they were turned over to the government. The court also concluded that, because the restitution amount was fulfilled through the forfeited assets, defendant did not have any remaining restitution obligation. Accordingly, defendant's restitution balance has been satisfied and the court reversed the district court's order. View "United States v. Carter" on Justia Law