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

Plaintiff, an atheist, filed suit seeking damages and injunctive relief after he was forced as a condition of parole to participate in a residential drug treatment program that required him to acknowledge a higher power. The court held that the district judge erred in denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial based on the jury's failure to award damages; in instructing the jury to determine whether liability should have been apportioned among the multiple defendants in this case; and in dismissing certain other of plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Hazle, Jr. v. Crofoot, et al." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from charges that defendant falsified a 2000 charitable organization tax return in order to conceal his support of an independence movement in Chechnya. The case involved significant amounts of classified materials and multiple in camera, ex parte reviews as well as classified proceedings. The court concluded, inter alia, that the government violated its obligations under Brady v. Maryland by withholding significant impeachment evidence relevant to a central government witness; the district court erred in approving an inadequate substitution for classified material that was relevant and helpful to the defense; and the search that the government conducted of defendant's computer hard drives went beyond the explicit limitations of the warrant and the court remanded to the district court to consider the appropriate scope of items seized and whether the exclusionary rule should apply. Considering the errors both individually as well as cumulatively in light of the evidence as a whole, the court concluded that the errors were prejudicial and reversed and remanded for a new trial. The court filed concurrently a classified opinion with respect to the substitution. View "United States v. Sedaghaty" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of fifteen counts of wire fraud, eleven counts of money laundering, and three counts of tax evasion. At issue on appeal was whether the district court correctly applied U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(9)(A) because his offense involved "a misrepresentation that the defendant was acting on behalf of a charitable...organization." The court concluded that, under the reasoning of United States v. Treadwell, defendant's offense fits easily within the ambit of charitable enhancement even though his scheme involved the sham sale of shares in a for-profit company; the applicability of his sentencing enhancement did not change because he purported to act in the interest of a charitable organization but not as its agent or representative; and it was not significant that defendant's investor's could have been motivated, in part, by a desire to profit personally. By presenting the investment opportunity as his means of donating to the charitable organization, defendant misrepresented that he was acting "to obtain a benefit on behalf of" the organization. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the enhancement and the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Cohen" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to violating Nev. Rev. Stat. 484C.110(3)(g), which prohibited driving with over 2ng/ml of marijuana in the blood, assimilated into federal law under the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 13. On appeal, defendant challenged his conviction because an applicable federal regulation punished his conduct, thereby precluding assimilation of Nevada law. The court agreed with the district court that there was a gap in federal law which could be properly filled by Nevada's per se drugged driving law where there was no indication of an overriding federal policy with which Nevada's per se drugged driving law interfered and where there was a gap in federal law with respect to punishing operators of vehicles who exceeded a per se drug limit regardless of impairment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Reed" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, was convicted of brandishing a firearm in the presence of the occupant of a motor vehicle, in violation of California Penal Code section 417.3. An IJ subsequently determined that petitioner's conviction was for a "crime of violence" and thereby an "aggravated felony," making petitioner statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal and for asylum. The IJ denied withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief on the merits. After petitioner appealed, the BIA affirmed the IJ's conclusion but issued its own reasoned decision. Petitioner petitioned for review of the BIA's decision. The court dismissed the petition for review, concluding that California Penal Code section 417.3 qualified categorically as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(a) and, therefore, petitioner was an aggravated felon who was ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(3). View "Bolanos v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Peru, was found removable because he had committed a theft offense that qualified as an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43). At issue was whether the government proved that petitioner was convicted of a qualifying felony theft offense. Applying the modified categorical approach, the court concluded that petitioner was clearly and unambiguously charged as a principal who personally drove or took the vehicle of another, without consent and with the intent to deprive the owner of it under California Vehicle Code section 10851(a). Further, the BIA has held that section 10851(a) was a categorical theft offense even though, in some circumstances, it criminalizes taking a vehicle temporarily. The court has also defined a "theft offense" to include taking property without consent and with the intent to deprive the owner of the property, even if the deprivation is less than total or permanent. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Duenas-Alvarez v. Holder" on Justia Law

The district court granted petitioner's petition for a 28 U.S.C. 2254 writ of habeas corpus, concluding that petitioner had ineffective assistance of trial counsel and that California's Court of Appeal's application of the Strickland v. Washington standard was unreasonable. The district court also concluded that the Court of Appeal's factual findings in support of its decision were unreasonable. Counsel failed to timely object to an unsworn witness's testimony, knowing at the time that the witness had decided to change his story, and, therefore, counsel waived any objections he might of had to the testimony. The court affirmed, concluding that the Court of Appeal's conclusion that counsel's decision not to object in a timely fashion was acceptably tactical and not error was objectively unreasonable; the Court of Appeal's factual determinations were unsupported by the record and thus demonstrably and clearly erroneous; and petitioner was prejudiced by these errors. View "Griffin v. Harrington" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon and was sentenced to 46-months in prison. The principal issue on appeal concerned U.S.S.G. 4A1.2(d)(2)(A), which assigned criminal history points for crimes that were committed when the defendant was a juvenile. The court concluded that consideration of juvenile criminal history in determining the sentence for an adult convicted of a crime did not violate the Eighth Amendment. The court also concluded that the district court's application of the modified categorical approach to determine that defendant's prior attempted burglary conviction was for a "crime of violence" did not survive the Supreme Court's recent decision in Descamps v. United States. Further, the government has never contended in this litigation that the burglary statute was categorically a crime of violence. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing without the "crime of violence" enhancement. View "United States v. Edwards" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to knowingly filing false federal income tax returns. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's revocation of her probation. The court concluded that the record demonstrated defendant's fugitive status. Because defendant's fugitive status tolled her Probation Term from July 2010 until she was found and arrested by federal authorities in April 2012, the time added to her Probation Term extended it well beyond its original expiration date. Consequently, the Revocation hearing occurred during defendant's Probation Term and the district court had jurisdiction to revoke defendant's probation. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant and the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Grant" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of illegal reentry after deportation and subsequently appealed his sentence of 30 months' imprisonment. The district court concluded that his 2005 Illinois conviction for aggravated criminal sexual abuse was a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). In Descamps v. United States, the Supreme Court clarified the proper application of the modified categorical approach. Applying Descamps, the court concluded that the district court erred in holding that defendant's crime was a crime of violence, an error which resulted from the district court's application of the modified categorical approach when it compared the elements of defendant's offense with the elements of its federal analogue. Because the error was not harmless, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Acosta-Chavez" on Justia Law