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

Defendant, a federal sex offender, appealed his conviction under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq., for failing to register. The court held that the Attorney General has not validly specified that 42 U.S.C. 16913(a)'s requirement of initial registration in the jurisdiction of the sex-offense conviction applied to offenders like defendant - offenders who were, at the time of SORNA's enactment and implementation, already subject to sex-offender registration obligations under a pre-SORNA scheme. The court concluded that the jury instructions contained an error of law in that they permitted the jury to convict solely on the basis of defendant's failure to register in the jurisdiction of his sex offense conviction and the error was harmful. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for a judgment of acquittal. View "United States v. DeJarnette" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a noncitizen "enemy combatant" undergoing proceedings before a military commission at Guatanamo Bay, sought a declaratory judgment that the commission lacked jurisdiction to hear the charges against him because the alleged acts occurred in Yemen, where he argued no war or hostilities existed in 2000 or 2002. The court held, pursuant to Hamad v. Gates, that Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act, 28 U.S.C. 2241(e), deprived the district court of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's suit. The court rejected plaintiff’s claims challenging the constitutionality of the Act. View "Al-Nashiri v. MacDonald" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for criminal copyright infringement based on his sale of Adobe software. The court applied the willfulness standard for criminal copyright cases as recently clarified in United States v. Liu and concluded that the jury instruction was flawed but did not rise to the level of plain error; the evidence of uncharged acts was properly admitted as intrinsic to the charged conduct and the court affirmed the conviction; and the district court erred in failing to award restitution reflecting the victim's actual loss and the court vacated the restitution order and remanded for reconsideration. View "United States v. Anderson, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of receiving child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(2). On appeal, defendant argued that his act of "showing" child pornography did not qualify as "distribution" under the sentencing guidelines. The court declined to address this argument, concluding that defendant's act of permitting the child victim to print copies of child pornography stored on his computer independently qualified as "distribution." The court also concluded that penile plethysmograph testing was not warranted given the lack of requisite findings by the district court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Roybal" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions for various criminal tax offenses arising from their use of gold and silver coins to pay wages and thus avoid the reporting of payroll and income taxes. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant Kahre's motion to suppress evidence seized from the properties at issue; the court held that the district court correctly determined that gold and silver coins used to pay wages were properly assessed at their fair market value and that defendants had sufficient notice that their conduct was illegal under the tax laws; the district court properly denied defendants' motion to disqualify the prosecutor because defendants failed to present clear and convincing evidence of an impermissible conflict of interest or of prejudice; the court rejected defendants' evidentiary arguments; defendants were not entitled to a new trial based on the district court's comments or conduct; and Kahre's below-guidelines sentence imposed for the extensive illegal payroll scheme with its associated tax loss, was comparable to sentences for similar crimes, and was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Kahre" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine under 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(ii) and possession of a firearm in furtherance of the conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(i). Defendant argued that the government's conduct was outrageous, insofar as the government collaborated with an informant with a criminal history. The court concluded that the fact that the informant had engaged in past crimes did not raise due process concerns about the government's use of him as a confidential informant in its investigation. Nor did the nature of the informant's past crimes render the government's conduct outrageous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Hullaby" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The district court denied two of petitioner's claims as procedurally defaulted. At issue was whether Martinez v. Ryan applied to the failure to raise not only a claim of trial-counsel ineffective assistance of counsel, but also a claim of appellate-counsel ineffective assistance of counsel. Concluding that it did, the court remanded to allow the district court to determine in the first instance whether petitioner's state-court procedural default should be excused under Martinez. View "Nguyen v. Curry" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of robbery and assault. At issue was whether petitioner procedurally defaulted a federal habeas claim. In Harris v. Reed, the Supreme Court instructed that a procedural default did not bar consideration of a federal claim unless the last state court rendering a judgment in the case clearly and expressly stated that its judgment rested on a state procedural bar. Applying Harris and its Ninth Circuit progeny, the court held that petitioner did not default his claim and vacated the district court's dismissal of his habeas petition. Under Chambers v. McDaniel, the cursory rejection of petitioner's appeal made it quite plausible that the Oregon Court of Appeals reached the merits of petitioner's Sixth Amendment claim. View "Smith v. Hill" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to charges under 21 U.S.C. 841. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of is motion to suppress the fruits of a home search. The court concluded that it was not objectively reasonable for agents to conclude that a houseguest had authority to consent to a search of the master bedroom and bathroom; it was not objectively reasonable for the agents to conclude that the houseguest had authority to consent to a search of the area beyond the door inside the master bedroom; the government's protective sweep fallback argument was waived; and the plain view doctrine did not apply. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to the district court. View "United States v. Arreguin" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss an indictment against him for violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9), which prohibits persons convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from possessing firearms for life. Applying United States v. Brailey, the court concluded that defendant's domestic violence conviction did not divest him of "core" civil rights and he could not qualify for the civil rights restored exception to section 922(g)(9). The court rejected defendant's argument that the civil rights restored exception violated the Equal Protection Clause for the same reasons the court articulated in United States v. Hancock. Like the First, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits, the court applied intermediate scrutiny to section 922(g)(9) and held that it was constitutional on its face and as applied to defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Chovan" on Justia Law