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

Plaintiff entered a conditional plea of guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and subsequently appealed his conviction. On appeal, defendant argued that the wiretap application, filed by Assistant District Attorney Dennis Christy (ADA Christy), was invalid. The court disagreed with defendant that the language "the principal prosecuting attorney" found in 18 U.S.C. 2516(2) could not and should not be read to include a state assistant district attorney. The court concluded that compliance with section 2516(2) necessarily required an analysis of the applicable state wire tap statute, here California Penal Code 659.50. The court also held that "the" attorney designated to act in the district attorney's absence specified in section 629.50 must be acting in the district attorney's absence not just as an assistant district attorney designated with the limited authority to apply for a wiretap order, but as an assistant district attorney duly designated to act for all purposes as the district attorney of the political subdivision in question. The court concluded that the record was insufficient for it to determine the precise nature of ADA Christy's authority at the time he applied for the disputed wiretap. Accordingly, the court remanded for further findings of fact. View "United States v. Perez-Valencia" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed the district court's order of restitution under Apprendi v. New Jersey. Defendants, movie industry veterans, were convicted of charges related to their payment to the governor of Thailand's Tourism Authority for various contracts to run the Bangkok International Film Festival. On appeal, defendants claimed that the district court violated Apprendi when it ordered them to pay restitution without a jury's finding that there was "an identifiable victim or victims" who suffered a "pecuniary loss," which was required to trigger restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3663A(c)(1)(B). The court concluded that Apprendi did not apply to restitution and that Southern Union Co. v. United States was not "clearly irreconcilable" with the court's holdings that restitution was "unaffected" by Apprendi. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's restitution orders. View "United States v. Green" on Justia Law

Defendant, the Bureau of Indian Affairs Superintendent at the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, was convicted of charges stemming from her involvement in a scheme to obtain money from a tribal credit program. The court reversed defendant's convictions on Counts I and II (conspiracy, theft and conversion of Indian Tribal Organization property) because the alleged object of the conspiracy - the loan modification - was not itself criminal and, therefore, there could be no conspiracy; affirmed defendant's conviction on Count III (bribery) where a rational jury could easily infer a quid pro quo from the facts; reversed defendant's conviction on Count IV (falsification, concealment, or covering up of a material fact) because the government did not show that defendant violated a specific duty to report Credit Program fraud; reversed defendant's conviction on Count V (public acts affecting a personal financial interest) because defendant's financial interest in this matter was insufficient under 18 U.S.C. 208(a); and affirmed defendant's conviction on Count VI (misprision of a felony) where a jury could conclude that payment of the loans at issue made the discovery of the fraud less likely and, therefore, that defendant took an affirmative step to conceal the felony. The court also concluded that there was no Fifth Amendment violation arising out of defendant's convictions on Count V and VI. Finally, the court remanded for resentencing where the district court erred in adjusting the sentence. View "United States v. White Eagle" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction of one count of conspiracy to transport aliens who unlawfully came to or entered the United States and three counts of transporting such aliens, in each case for financial gain. The court held that the admission of the forms filled out by Border Patrol agents did not violate the Confrontation Clause. The court held, however, that the district court erred in admitting the forms under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay because this exception did not apply to records of government agencies. Here, the aliens' statements that they were in the United States illegally did not qualify as public records. The district court's error in admitting such statements did not substantially affect the verdict and, therefore, was harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Morales" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence stemming from his conviction of importing wire hangers without paying the proper duties. The court concluded that the district court incorrectly applied U.S.S.G. 2C1.1 where defendant did not engage in "improper use of government influence," bribery, or extortion, nor did he conspire to do so. Instead, the district court should have applied U.S.S.G. 2T3.1 for evading import duties or restrictions. In regards to calculations for the amount of loss, the court did not resolve the question of which rates apply to which wire hangers, but left the question for the district court to decide on remand under the proper sentencing guideline. View "United States v. Huizar-Velazquez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued police officers for their alleged use of excessive force in violation of plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights. Plaintiff was awarded compensatory damages after a jury found that the officers' use of force was constitutionally excessive. Both parties cross-appealed. The court affirmed the district court's entry of judgment on the jury's verdict because the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. The court held, however that the district court abused its discretion by failing to adequately explain its decision to reduce the amount awarded to plaintiff and in denying plaintiff pre-and post-judgment interest. Accordingly, the court reversed those portions of the district court's orders, remanding for further proceedings. View "Barnard v. Theobald" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to a drug conspiracy charge and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment followed by supervised release. One condition of his supervised release required him to provide a blood sample for analysis of his DNA, and inclusion of his DNA profile into the government's CODIS database. After completing his term of supervised release, defendant sought the return of his blood sample under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). The court concluded that the district court correctly held that defendant was seeking the return of "property" and defendant was "aggrieved" under Rule 41; rejected the government's contention that defendant lacked standing; and affirmed the district court's holding that the use of the blood samples to ensure the accuracy of DNA identification was a valid reason to retain the sample. View "United States v. Kriesel, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant moved to dismiss his federal grand jury indictment, charging him with one count of possessing child pornography, on double jeopardy grounds because he had been subject to nonjudicial proceedings (NJP) with the Coast Guard. At issue was whether the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibited civilian criminal prosecution of a servicemember who previously received NJP without being informed of or waiving his statutory right to reject such punishment and demand a court-martial instead. The court concluded that the inquiry for the Double Jeopardy Clause was whether the defendant actually was previously placed in jeopardy, not whether he might have been placed in jeopardy if other procedures had been followed. Therefore, the court held that defendant's prosecution did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court also rejected defendant's alternative argument, reversing and remanding for further proceedings. View "United States v. Stoltz" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence stemming from his conviction for sex trafficking of children by force, fraud, or coercion. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying a two-point enhancement for undue influence under U.S.S.G. 2G1.3(b)(2); the district court did not err in applying a two-level upward adjustment under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(c) because defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in a criminal activity; and, therefore, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murder, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner claimed that the trial court's ruling regarding the testing of a blood sample violated his constitutional rights to counsel and due process. The court concluded that the Supreme Court had not squarely addressed petitioner's claim or articulated a rule that clearly extended to the present case; the California Court of Appeal's decision therefore could not be said to have unreasonably applied clearly established federal law under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act; and, therefore, the court deferred to the state court and affirmed the conviction. View "Varghese v. Uribe, Jr., et al." on Justia Law