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

Defendant was convicted for failing to appear in violation of 18 U.S.C. 3146 and subsequently appealed his sentence of 27 months' imprisonment. At issue was which subsection of 18 U.S.C. 3146(b)(1)(A) established the appropriate maximum prison term in this circumstance. The court joined the First, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits in holding that it determined the applicable maximum by looking to the underlying criminal offense, rather than to an intervening violation of supervised release. Because the underlying offense, unlawful possession of a mail key, was punishable by a prison term of five years or more, the five-year maximum prison term found in subsection (ii) applied in this circumstance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Jensen" on Justia Law

After defendant allegedly traveled to Mexico and engaged in illicit sexual conduct involving a minor, the government indicted defendant on one count of violating 18 U.S.C. 2423(c) and, because he was under a state-law duty to register as a sex offender, one count of violating section 2260A. The court held that the section 2260A count against defendant did not violate ex post facto principles. Even accepting defendant's argument that the state laws applied the registration requirement to him retroactively, the additional punishment under section 2260A was not for his earlier crimes. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of that count and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Hardeman" on Justia Law

Respondents appealed the district court's grant of habeas corpus to petitioner pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder with a deadly weapon and robbery with a deadly weapon. The district court granted habeas relief, concluding that the Kazalyn instruction for first degree murder given in petitioner's case violated her due process rights and that the improper instruction did not constitute harmless error. The court held that, in light of Nika v. State, petitioner's claim that the Kazalyn instruction violated her due process rights because it did not provide a distinct definition for deliberation failed. Byford v. State, which narrowed the scope of conduct that could qualify as first degree murder by expanding and separating definitions of premeditation, deliberation, and willfulness, should be applied to petitioner's conviction, which was not final at the time Byford was decided. The court held that the erroneous instructions constituted harmless error. The court reversed and remanded for the district court to consider petitioner's other claims in her petition which were not addressed by the district court. View "Babb v. Lozowsky, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant, a juvenile male, was charged with second-degree murder and using a firearm during a crime of violence. Defendant was seventeen years old at the time of the alleged offenses. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's order granting the government's motion to transfer juvenile proceedings for adult prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 5032. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by making findings regarding defendant's intellectual development and psychological maturity; the district court did not abuse its discretion by making a finding about the alleged discrepancy in individualized attention and counseling programs when comparing the adult and juvenile detention systems; and the district court's presumption of guilt for purposes of the transfer decision did not violate defendant's due process rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. JJ, Juvenile Male" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's holding that his conviction for simple kidnapping under California Penal Code (CPC) 207(a) was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), making him statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. The court held that simple kidnapping under CPC 207(a) was not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude where simple kidnapping did not involve an intent to harm someone, the actual infliction of harm upon someone, or an action that affected a protected class of victim. The court granted the petition for review and remanded to allow the BIA to conduct a modified categorical analysis of petitioner's crime. View " Castrijon-Garcia v Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of knowingly possessing a biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate a sentence. The court addressed defendant's claims regarding a Brady violation, ineffective assistance of counsel, juror bias, and cumulative error, but found no reversible error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to vacate the sentence. View "United States v. Olsen" on Justia Law

Sideman, the legal representative for a taxpayer who was under criminal investigation by the IRS, appealed from the district court's order enforcing an IRS administrative summons to produce the taxpayer's documents. Sideman argued that producing the documents would be testimonial in violation of the taxpayer's Fifth Amendment rights. The district court's finding that the IRS could independently authenticate the tax records contained in the identified collection of boxes and folders currently held by Sideman was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the court held that the district court did not err in applying the foregone conclusion exception when enforcing Sideman's compliance with the summons. View "United States v. Sideman & Bancroft, LLP" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of robbery/murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, defendant raised several claims regarding prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and improper admission of post-arrest statements. The court addressed each claim and held that the district court properly denied the petition. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Cunningham v. Wong" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for felony and misdemeanor assault. Defendant challenged his conviction on due-process grounds, claiming his constitutional rights were violated where the prosecution "threatened" one of its own witnesses with possible perjury charges, allegedly causing the witness to change her previous exculpatory trial testimony to be inculpatory. The court rejected the due-process challenge because defendant failed to meet his evidentiary burden. The court also held that defendant's claim of sentencing error failed because it relied on a misunderstanding of the court's opinion in United States v. Waknine. View "United States v. Juan" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action claiming that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs related to dental care. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's judgment as a matter of law in favor of Dr. Dillard and Dr. Fitter and judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Dr. Brooks. At issue was whether the district court erred when it instructed the jury on the question of whether Dr. Brooks could be held responsible for failing to provide services when he lacked resources. The court held that the principle contained in the instructions given in this case was a proper one where the instruction took into account the duties, discretion, and means available. The instruction, in effect, stated that if Dr. Brooks could not "render or cause to be rendered" the needed services because of a lack of resources that he could not cure, he also could not individually be liable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Peralta v. Dillard, et al" on Justia Law