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

Defendant appealed his convictions for unlawfully dealing in firearms, and making false statements to customs officials to gain entry into the United States. The court concluded that defendant was not entitled to his proposed jury instructions, which required the government to prove that defendant was not acting as an authorized agent of a federal firearms licensee; the evidence was sufficient to prove that he engaged in the business of dealing firearms; in regards to the false statements convictions, the government presented sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of materiality; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. King" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner was convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, child molestation, and sexual abuse. After petitioner's conviction, his trial lawyer learned that the victim had recanted her allegations and counsel then filed a motion to vacate. Because petitioner himself, as well as his two prior counsel were aware of the recantation, the trial judge concluded that the testimony at issue was not newly discovered evidence. The court concluded that the state courts erred by determining that counsel's performance did not prejudice petitioner where counsel's failure to read petitioner's client file was not excused by the failure of the client to inform counsel of what was in the file. Further, counsel's abdication of his duty to investigate was deficient performance under Strickland v. Washington. Here, the deficient performance was prejudicial where the recantations were not merely cumulative, and proper disclosure to the jury could have tipped the scales in petitioner's favor. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Vega v. Ryan" on Justia Law

Defendant, a livestock buyer and cattle rancher, was convicted of false statements to a bank, bank fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, bankruptcy scheme to defraud, and aggravated identity theft. Defendant's convictions stemmed from his involvement in a scheme to secure loans with cattle he did not own and promises to use these loans for profitable business enterprises. The court overturned the convictions of false statements to a bank and aggravated identity theft, affirming defendant's convictions on the remaining counts. In this second appeal, the court held that defendant was not entitled to the presumption of vindictiveness because the district court did not impose a more severe sentence on remand; defendant failed to show actual vindictiveness on the part of the district court; defendant failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in finding over $5 million in relevant conduct losses; defendant failed to show that his fraud scheme was not sufficiently complex to warrant a sophisticated means enhancement; and defendant has not met his burden of showing that the trial court's certification of the transcripts was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's resentencing of defendant. View "United States v. Horob" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit pro se under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against police officers for violations of his Fourth Amendment right in their searches and seizures and plaintiff's arrest pursuant to warrants. Defendant was arrested for disseminating indecent materials to minors. The court concluded that the officers demonstrated their entitlement to the Messerschmidt v. Millender "shield of immunity" from suit and that the claims against them should be dismissed. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's denial of the officer's motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity and remanded. View "Armstrong v. Asselin" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of attempted murder, appealed from the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas petition as untimely. The court concluded that a section 2254 petition was not statutorily tolled during the 100-day gap between the denial of his State Court of Appeals Petition and the filing of his State Supreme Court Petition. Therefore, petitioner's section 2254 petition was not timely filed. Further, petitioner failed to make a showing of actual innocence under Schlup v. Delo. The district court properly reached its decision without an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Stewart v. Cate" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to a single count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Defendant's appeal concerned the retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372, and the related amended Sentencing Guidelines ranges for offenses involving crack cocaine. The court concluded that defendant did not waive her right to appeal the reduced sentence; under the plain language of 28 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), the district court was required to apply U.S.S.G. 1B1.10 and the district court concluded correctly that under the revised version of section 1B1.10, it could not adjust defendant's sentence below 70 months; the two-step analysis in Dillon v. United States did not hinge to any degree on the substantive content of section 1B1.10 and an amendment of that policy did not affect the two-step process; the district court properly followed the two-step process by first determining that a reduction below 70 months would be inconsistent with section 1B1.10 as revised and declined to grant defendant's full motion; and the court rejected defendant's remaining arguments. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v.Tercero" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of aiding and abetting a senseless murder in a public bus. The prosecutor neglected, however, to discharge his obligation to disclose material information that would have enabled defense counsel to impeach the credibility of a critical witness against defendant. Applying de novo review, the court concluded that the prosecutor violated defendant's right to due process under Brady v. Maryland and defendant was entitled to a new trial. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the writ of habeas corpus and release defendant from custody unless the district attorney timely initiated proceedings for a new trial. View "Amado v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual abuse of a child and was sentenced to 450 months' imprisonment. On appeal, defendant argued that his guilty plea and sentence must be set aside because the district court impermissibly and prejudicially participated in his plea negotiations. The court followed United States v. Davila and reviewed the district court's alleged violation of Rule 11(c)(1) in light of the prejudice inquiry required. The court found that the district court participated in the parties' plea discussions by prematurely committing itself to a sentence of a specific severity and the district court's participation prejudiced defendant. Accordingly, the court held that the plea must be vacated and the appeal remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Kyle" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, petitioned for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The California Court of Appeal had found that the custodial confession at issue was obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, but that it was harmless error. The district court conditionally granted the petition, finding that the California Court of Appeal's harmless error determination conflicted with the clearly established Supreme Court precedent of Harrison v. United States. Harrison held that when a defendant's trial testimony was induced by the erroneous admission of a confession into evidence, the trial testimony could not be introduced in a subsequent prosecution, nor could it be used to support the initial conviction on harmless error review. Harrison outlined a clear exclusionary rule that applied to the States; Harrison did not conflict with Motes v. United States; and Harrison remained clearly established law subsequent to Oregon v. Elstad. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's determination that federal habeas corpus relief under section 2254(d)(1) was warranted. The court affirmed the district court's and state appellate court's conclusion that law enforcement's communications with petitioner did not comply with the clearly established Supreme Court precedent in Miranda v. Arizona and its progeny. The court vacated portions of the district court's order and judgment that concluded second-degree murder convictions were an appropriate remedy, remanding to the district court to issue a conditional writ. View "Lujan v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of murder-for-hire and victim tampering. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred by denying his pre-judgment motion for new trial without reaching the merits of his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The court concluded that the district court did not err in this case by deferring consideration of defendant's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim to collateral review, when a complete record would be available. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order denying the motion for a new trial. View "United States v. Steele" on Justia Law