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

Petitioner petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his application for adjustment of status and its denial of his motion to reopen based on new evidence. The BIA concluded that petitioner was ineligible for adjustment of status because of a 1997 conviction for possession of marijuana for sale in violation of California Health & Safety Code section 11359. Petitioner contended that the conviction was actually for simple possession of marijuana in violation of Health & Safety Code section 11357, and that, as a result, he was eligible for relief. The court concluded that petitioner failed to establish that the state court changed his 1997 drug conviction from possession of marijuana for sale under section 11359 to simple possession of marijuana under section 11357. Because petitioner remained inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 1182 notwithstanding the state court's expungement of his section 11359 offense, he was ineligible for adjustment of status. Accordingly, the court denied the petitions for review. View "Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit against officials from the California State Prison, alleging constitutional violations relating to his six-day placement on contraband watch. Plaintiff was placed on contraband watch after three unlabeled bottles found in his prison cell tested positive for methamphetamine. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in part but denied summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's Eighth Amendment and due process claims against Defendant Mandeville and Rosario. The court held that both Defendant Mandeville and Rosario were entitled to qualified immunity because the law at the time plaintiff was on contraband watch did not clearly establish that their actions were unconstitutional. View "Chappell v. Mandeville, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, conspiracy to distribute cocaine, possession of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute, and possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute. On appeal, defendant raised numerous claims. The court held that the district court was correct in ruling that Dixon v. United States applied to defendant's public authority defense and subsequently affirmed the district court with respect to all alleged errors regarding defendant's assertion of the public authority defense. The district court did not deprive defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when it prevented him from arguing an incorrect burden of proof to the jury during his closing argument. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying certain discovery requests as overbroad and immaterial; however, the record was unclear as to what, if anything, would have been produced if those requests had been granted and what effect, if any, the production would have had on the outcome of defendant's trial. Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's conviction and remanded for further proceedings. The court agreed with defendant that his sentencing hearing contained several procedural violations. If defendant's conviction is reinstated, his sentence must be vacated and he must be resentenced. View "United States v. Doe" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from a conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. At issue was whether a witness's testimony in disguise at trial violated the Confrontation Clause. The witness was a confidential informant and his disguise would protect his identity in light of the inherent dangers of the particular case and the public nature of the courtroom. The court held that in this case, the disguise in the form of a wig and mustache did not violate the Confrontation Clause. Even if the testimony violated defendant's due process rights, such error was harmless. View "United States v. Jesus-Casteneda" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico and lawful permanent resident of the United States, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's order of removal. Petitioner had pled guilty to false imprisonment in violation of California Penal Code 210.5 and the IJ held that petitioner's conviction qualified as a crime of violence. The court concluded that California Penal Code 210.5 was categorically a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(b) and was therefore an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The court otherwise lacked jurisdiction to review petitioner's final order of removal. Accordingly, the court denied the petition in part and dismissed in part. View "Barragan-Lopez, et al v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's determination that petitioner was ineligible for withholding of removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) because his conviction for resisting arrest constituted a particularly serious crime. The court held that it had jurisdiction over petitioner's challenges, which were premised on constitutional and legal considerations, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C). Because the BIA had not adequately explained its reasons for designating petitioner's conviction a particularly serious crime, the court granted the petition with respect to the particularly serious crime determination and remanded to the BIA for an appropriate explanation. As to petitioner's CAT claim for deferral of removal, the court denied the petition. View " Alphonsus v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted under the Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 1153, which provided for federal jurisdiction over certain crimes committed by Indians in Indian country. The court held that the Tribal Enrollment Certificate was insufficient to establish that defendant was an Indian for the purposes of federal jurisdiction under section 1153 because the government introduced no evidence that defendant's bloodline was derived from a federally recognized tribe. Because the court held that the government introduced insufficient evidence under the first prong of the United States v. Bruce test, the court need not consider whether the Tribal Enrollment Certificate alone was sufficient to carry the government's burden as to the second prong. Accordingly, the court reversed defendant's convictions under section 1153 in counts 2 through 9 of the indictment. Defendant's conviction for conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 was unaffected by the court's disposition. View "United States v. Zepeda" on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged that defendants, correctional officers at the prison where he was incarcerated at the time of the alleged occurrence, violated his Eighth Amendment rights by spraying him with an excessive quantity of pepper spray. Plaintiff also alleged that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were disregarded when the officers denied him a vegetarian breakfast. The court held that the district court failed to draw all inferences in plaintiff's favor when resolving the issue of qualified immunity in a summary judgment and therefore, the court reversed and remanded on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the Equal Protection challenge where plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to whether the officers intentionally refused to provide him with a religious breakfast tray while providing the same to other inmates who were similarly situated. View "Furnace v. Sullivan, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to reentry as a removed alien without a plea agreement. The district court included a crime of violence sentencing enhancement based on its conclusion that defendant's prior Washington State third-degree rape conviction qualified as a forcible sex offense under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2. Defendant appealed his sentence. The court held that because the Guidelines were amended in 2008 to include as a forcible sex offense any sex offense involving the absence of the victim's consent, the district court did not err in entering the enhancement in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Gallegos-Galindo" on Justia Law

Defendant, a citizen of Mexico, pleaded guilty to third degree rape under Oregon law in December 1999. In 2002, he pleaded guilty for failing to register as a sex offender and voluntarily left the country some time later. After being indicted in 2010 for illegally reentering the country after having been previously removed, defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that his 2004 order of removal was invalid because the IJ incorrectly determined that his Oregon statutory rape conviction was an aggravated felony and, as a result, erroneously informed him that he was not eligible for voluntary departure. The court concluded that defendant's underlying removal proceeding was consistent with due process because he was correctly informed that he was ineligible for discretionary relief from removal under the applicable law at the time of his removal hearing. Accordingly, the court reversed the dismissal of the indictment against defendant and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Vidal-Mendoza" on Justia Law