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

Defendant pleaded guilty to five counts of mail fraud and two counts of wire fraud. On appeal, defendant challenged his conviction, sentence, order of restitution, and imposition of a special condition. The court concluded that there was no breach of the plea agreement where the government's arguments at sentencing were directed to the specific objective identified in and permitted by the plea agreement; notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(h) was not required in this instance where the district court's outside the Guidelines sentence was the result of a variance, not a departure, where it relied on 8 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors; the district court did not err by failing to sua sponte determine the sufficiency and reliability of the statements proffered by the government in support of restitution for newly-discovered victims; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Special Condition No. 8, which required that defendant apply all monies received to his court-ordered financial obligations, to ensure that the victims received restitution should defendant receive any sort of unexpected financial gain. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Moschella" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of obstruction of justice for their involvement in leaking information regarding an FBI investigation to members of the Hells Angels gang and thus facilitating their criminal enterprise. On appeal, defendants claimed that they could not be convicted under the obstruction of justice statute, 18 U.S.C. 1512, because their alleged obstruction of an FBI investigation did not qualify as obstruction of an "official proceeding" under the statute. In light of the plain meaning of the term "proceeding," its use in the grammatical context of the "official proceeding" definition, and the broader statutory context, the court concluded that a criminal investigation was not an "official proceeding" under the obstruction of justice statute. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded so the district court could enter a judgment of acquittal on those charges. View "United States v. Ermoian" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for possession with intent to distribute marijuana on March 24, 2010. On May 18, 2011, a superseding indictment issued adding a charge of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana. Defendant was found guilty of the conspiracy charge and subsequently appealed, raising claims concerning the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161 et seq., and the use of a drug-detection dog. The court held that charges in a superseding indictment not required to be joined with the original charges come with a new seventy-day clock under the Act. In this instance, defendant's prosecution for the conspiracy charge complied with the Act because trial commenced within seventy days of the superseding indictment. The court concluded, however, that the government's failure to turn over a full complement of dog-history discovery was an error that was not harmless. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress and vacated defendant's conviction. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Petitioner, sentenced to 254 years of imprisonment for nonhomicide crimes he committed when he was sixteen years old, petitioned for review of the district court's denial of his petition for federal habeas corpus relief. In Graham v. Florida, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution prohibits States from sentencing a juvenile offender to life in prison without parole for a nonhomicide crime. The court concluded that Graham established a new rule of law that was retroactively applicable on collateral review under Teague v. Lane. Further, the state court's decision was contrary to clearly established Federal law set forth in Graham where defendant's sentence was materially indistinguishable from the sentence in Graham and where defendant's nonhomicide crimes were materially indistinguishable from the nonhomicide crimes in Graham. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to grant defendant's petition. View "Moore v. Biter" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her sentence stemming from her conviction of crimes related to her involvement in the Ichihara drug network. The court concluded that the district court failed to use the Sentencing Guidelines as a starting point for its analysis but, instead, selected the sentence first and then placed defendant in the Guidelines range that would allow the sentence; the district court incorrectly calculated the base offense level because it improperly held that defendant had pled guilty to transporting methamphetamine of a certain purity level; and the district court failed to calculate the revised statutory mandatory minimum sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3553(e) and, therefore, the court could not determine the legality or appropriateness of defendant's 96-month sentence. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. On remand, the court advised the district court to give further consideration at resentencing to defendant's age and the likelihood that she will die in prison. View "United States v. Lee" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of mail fraud and theft by an officer or employee of a gaming establishment on Indian lands. On appeal, defendant challenged his conviction. The court concluded that the location of the gaming establishment was not an element of the offense under 18 U.S.C. 1168(b) and that the indictment adequately alleged mail fraud and theft by an officer or employee of a gaming establishment on Indian lands; there was no error in the jury instructions where the instructions correctly defined "intent to defraud;" and there was no error in the admission of prior acts evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's convictions. View "United States v. Livingston" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction on one count of importation of methamphetamine. The court held that the district court did not err in admitting defendant's post-arrest statement because defendant's statement was voluntary and arguably inconsistent with his trial testimony and because the prosecution used the statement only as impeachment during rebuttal; the admission of a special agent's testimony as an expert on several topics did not violate Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b), Federal Rule of Evidence 403, and the Confrontation Clause and the district court did not commit reversible error in admitting the testimony; and the prosecutor's statement that it was the jury's "duty" to convict defendant did not amount to prosecutorial misconduct. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Gomez" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of eight misdemeanor counts of possession of child pornography and one misdemeanor count of duplicating child pornography, appealed the denial of his federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court concluded that, although the prosecutor erred by arguing that the jury could consider the context in which the images at issue were displayed in determining whether the images were child pornography, the error was harmless. The court rejected defendant's remaining arguments and affirmed the judgment. View "Shoemaker v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of six counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition. Petitioner challenged four certified claims and raised six uncertified claims, with respect to which the court granted a certificate of appealability. The court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment with respect to Claim 3 (trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence of mental disorders as a mitigating factor), Claim 4 (trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present a mental state defense), Claim 5 (trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence of petitioner's incompetence and to request competency hearings), and Claim 11 (petitioner was incompetent to stand trial and waived fundamental rights), where petitioner failed to establish that the California Supreme Court's decision denying his claims necessarily involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. In regards to the six additional claims, the court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment on those claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court in all respects. View "Sully v. Ayers, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with conspiracy to possess and distribute controlled substances, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine and ecstasy. On appeal, the government challenged the district court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress drug trafficking evidence found during a search of his home. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the evidence against defendant was obtained without a warrant based on probable cause and the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule was not met in this case. View "United States v. Underwood" on Justia Law