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

Defendant appealed his sentence stemming from his conviction for drug-related charges. The court vacated and remanded for resentencing, concluding that any error in estimating the quantity of drugs attributable to the conspiracy was harmless, but that the district court erred in imposing the sentencing enhancement for use of a minor under U.S.S.G. 3B1.4 without an adequate factual basis. View "United States v. Flores" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested and charged with illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's rejection of his guilty plea to illegal reentry into the country, asserting that the rejection violated his constitutional right against double jeopardy. The court court concluded that its prior opinions have rejected defendant's assertions that the indictment must set forth an enhancement under section 1326(b) and mention defendant's underlying conviction; the district court properly rejected defendant's guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and offered him the choice of again pleading guilty or proceeding to trial; because jeopardy attached when defendant pled guilty before the magistrate judge, this jeopardy never terminated and defendant had not been placed in double jeopardy; and defendant's claim was nonetheless colorable so the court had jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Valenzuela-Arisqueta" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 challenging the imposition and enforcement of two conditions of his parole: a residency restriction and a requirement that he submit to electronic monitoring using a GPS device. The district court dismissed the action under Rule 12(b)(6), concluding that habeas corpus provided the exclusive federal remedy for plaintiff's claims. The court held, however, that such an action was not barred by Heck v. Humphrey if it was not a collateral attack on either the fact of a parolee's confinement as a parolee or the parolee's underlying conviction or sentence. Because petitioner's action was such an attack, the court reversed and remanded . View "Thornton v. Brown" on Justia Law

These interlocutory appeals stemmed from an encounter between a group of young men and several BART officers that ended with the shooting and death of one of the men. The court concluded that Defendant Mehserle was not entitled to immunity from Oscar Grant, Jr.'s Fourteenth Amendment claim where there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Mehserle's action's were required by a legitimate law enforcement purpose; the court lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal asserting a right to federal law qualified immunity from a California state law (Civil Code 52.1) violation; Mehserle was entitled to qualified immunity from a claim that he unlawfully arrested Plaintiff Anicete; the district court failed to consider whether there was any evidence that Mehserle participated in the extended detentions of Plaintiffs Anicete, Reyes, or Nigel Bryson; the district court properly denied Mehserle qualified immunity from Plaintiff Jack Bryson's unlawful arrest claim; Defendant Pirone was properly denied qualified immunity for his initial detention of Reyes, the Brysons, and Greer; Pirone was not entitled to qualified immunity for conducting a de facto arrest of Reyes and the Brysons; Pirone was not entitled to qualified immunity from Greer's unlawful arrest claim; and to the extent the district court relied on Dubner v. City and County of San Francisco to deny Defendant Domenici immunity, its judgment was vacated. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, dismissed in part, and remanded. View "Johnson v. BART" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that deputies used excessive force against her late husband and that a deputy unreasonably seized her when he kept her from the crime scene. At issue was whether a reasonable jury could determine that the deputies violated the Constitution when they fatally shot the husband - an armed homeowner on his patio. In this instance, the court concluded that a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that the deputies' use of excessive force was constitutionally excessive where, among other things, the husband was not in the vicinity when the deputies arrived and plaintiff appeared unscathed and not in jeopardy. Accordingly, the court concluded that the deputies were not entitled to qualified immunity. The court dismissed plaintiff's cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "George v. Morris, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of federal drug-trafficking felonies, appealed his sentence. The district court sentenced defendant as a "career offender" under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1 because he had two prior convictions for "crimes of violence." The court concluded that defendant's prior conviction for criminal property damage in the first degree under section 708.820(1)(a) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes was categorically a crime of violence under the residual clause of section 4B1.2(a)(2). Further, defendant's claim that section 4B1.2(a)(2)'s residual clause was unconstitutionally vague was foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Spencer" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of first-degree murder, petitioned for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court concluded that the prosecution's failure to disclose that the police dog had a history of mistaken identifications violated Brady v. Maryland, and the California Court of Appeal's decision to the contrary was an unreasonable application of Brady. Accordingly, the court granted the petition and reversed the district court's judgment on the Brady claim. View "Aguilar v. Woodford" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of money laundering, bank fraud, loan fraud, and conspiracy to commit loan and bank fraud. On appeal, defendant challenged his convictions, which stemmed from a Los Angeles-based scheme to defraud mortgage lenders. The court affirmed, concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's convictions and, therefore, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for acquittal. View "United States v. Grasso" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to illegal reentry after a prior deportation and subsequently appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the prior deportation order was fundamentally unfair. The court concluded that defendant had shown that he exhausted his administrative remedies by appealing the IJ's adverse ruling to the BIA. Defendant failed, however, to show that an error or obstacle related to his deportation proceedings improperly deprived him of the opportunity for judicial review. Because 8 U.S.C. 1326(d)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(3) must all be satisfied either directly or constructively, the court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss and his conviction without addressing the merits of his argument. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Villalobos" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, appealed the denial of his federal habeas petition. Because the existence or absence of mitigating circumstances directly affected whether petitioner was death eligible under Arizona law, petitioner had a right to have a jury decide those facts under Ring v. Arizona. Applying the harmless error test, the court concluded that, in this instance, the absence of a jury at the sentencing stage had a substantial and injurious effect or influence on petitioner's sentence of death. Therefore, the court granted the habeas petition. Because the court reversed the denial of relief on the Ring claim, the court need not reach the claims concerning petitioner's competence to waive the presentation of mitigating evidence. The court otherwise affirmed and remanded with instructions to grant the petition unless the state court conducts a new sentencing hearing within a reasonable period of time. View "Murdaugh v. Ryan" on Justia Law