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

The Ninth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability (COA) allowing petitioner to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Petitioner's motion asserted that a report issued on August 12, 2020, by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), which concluded that petitioner's trial and sentence violated his rights under the American Declaration, requires that his death sentence be vacated, that he must be released or given a new trial, and that he cannot be sentenced to death after a new trial.The panel held that reasonable jurists would not find debatable the district court's conclusion that the IACHR's decision is not binding in federal court. In this case, the district court concluded that IACHR rulings do not have binding power within the United States by virtue of the Organization of American States (OAS) Charter because the OAS Charter is not self-executing, and Congress has passed no statute to implement it. Furthermore, the district court rejected petitioner's argument that IACHR decisions are binding because they are derived, through the OAS Charter, from the American Declaration on the ground that the American Declaration is not a treaty and creates no binding set of obligations. View "Mitchell v. United States" on Justia Law

After defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, he was charged with violating the conditions of his supervised release. Defendant filed a motion to terminate his supervised release on the ground that a change in the law meant that the state offense underlying his felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm conviction was no longer a felony. The district court denied defendant's motion, found that defendant had violated his supervised release, and imposed a fifteen-month term of imprisonment.The Ninth Circuit affirmed and agreed with the district court that the validity of an underlying conviction cannot be challenged in a supervised release revocation proceeding. Rather, the underlying conviction can only be collaterally attacked in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The panel also held that the sentence imposed by the district court was reasonable where it adequately considered defendant's arguments and the requisite statutory factors. View "United States v. Cate" on Justia Law

Following the lead of at least two sister circuits and noting the deference owed to prison officials in light of the special duties that arise in the prison context, the Ninth Circuit held that intermediate scrutiny applies to equal protection challenges of prison regulations which facially discriminate on the basis of gender.In this case, plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that prison officials discriminated against him based on his male gender by not allowing him to purchase certain prison vendor products available only to female inmates. The panel held that plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that he has standing to bring his equal protection challenge of the Department's regulation governing inmates' personal property. The panel also held that imprisoned men and women of the same security classification subject to the challenged regulation are similarly situated for the purpose of this case, and that prison regulations such as this one, which facially discriminate on the basis of gender, must receive intermediate scrutiny. Accordingly, the panel vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the prison officials. Because the panel had not yet established intermediate scrutiny as the applicable standard at the time the district court reviewed the regulation at issue, the panel remanded for the district court to determine the issue in the first instance. View "Harrison v. Kernan" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions for assaulting his wife with a dangerous weapon and assault of a spouse by strangulation, both of which occurred on federal land. The panel held that the evidence from two other attacks on defendant's wife was proper non-propensity evidence admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a). The panel stated that other acts of domestic violence involving the same victim are textbook examples of evidence admissible under Rule 404(b). In this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the non-propensity evidence to show that defendant was not joking around or simply trying to frighten his wife, but rather intended to assault and strangle her.The panel also held that there was no error in admitting the evidence under Rule 403 where the evidence of the prior attacks were probative of his intent in this case. Furthermore, the district court on three separate occasions instructed the jury that such acts could only be used for the limited purpose of deciding whether the defendant had the state of mind, knowledge, or intent to commit the crimes charged in the indictment. View "United States v. Berckmann" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions for conspiracy in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and conspiracy in violation of the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Activity (VICAR) Act. Defendant's convictions stemmed from her role as "secretary" to a high-ranking member of the Mexican Mafia (La Eme).The panel held that the district court correctly gave a "substantial purpose" rather than "but-for cause" instruction for the VICAR purpose element, and the evidence was sufficient to satisfy VICAR's membership-purpose requirement. The panel also held that there was no basis for reversal on the claimed instructional error for the RICO count; the jury instructions regarding attempt and conspiracy as predicate acts did not broaden the basis for conviction beyond the scope of the RICO statute; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving its mid-trial instruction. The panel rejected defendant's challenges to the dual role opinion testimony offered by two law enforcement witnesses for the government. Finally, the panel held that the district court did not err in excluding testimony from a key defense witness. Accordingly, the panel found no cumulative error providing a basis for reversal of defendant's conviction. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for 39 counts of distributing controlled substances outside the usual course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose to five of his former patients. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his role as a physician's assistant at a chronic pain-management medical practice.The panel held that uncharged prescriptions of controlled substances in enormous quantities, and in dangerous combinations, support a reasonable inference that the underlying prescriptions were issued outside the usual course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose. In this case, defendant's practice-wide evidence was therefore probative of his unlawful intent, undermining his defense at trial that the charged prescriptions amounted to a "few bad judgments." The panel held that, because the prescription data made the intent element of the 21 U.S.C. 841 charges more probable, the district court properly admitted defendant's uncharged prescriptions under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Assuming without deciding that the district court abused its discretion under Rule 403 by failing to preview all of the underlying prescription data before admitting it into evidence, the panel held that the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. View "United States v. Lague" on Justia Law

Defendant filed an emergency motion to stay his execution pending appeal of the denial of his motion to strike his execution warrant, vacate his execution, and enjoin violation of the district court's original judgment. Defendant argues that he is entitled to a stay pending appeal of the district court's order because the district court erred in denying his motion for injunctive relief.The Ninth Circuit denied the motion and held that defendant failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim that inconsistencies between the BOP's protocol for implementing his execution and Arizona's procedures violate the judgment and the Federal Death Penalty Act (FDPA), or that it is probable that he would suffer an irreparable injury in the absence of the stay. In this case, defendant identifies six purported inconsistencies between the BOP's execution protocol and the procedures in the Department Order Manual. The panel held that the BOP's protocol and the Department Order Manual procedures on which defendant relies are largely indistinguishable. To the extent there is any difference between the federal and Arizona procedures with respect to the first four examples, the BOP has provided a declaration certifying that it will comply with those procedures. Furthermore, as to the fifth and sixth examples, the BOP has complied with the Department Order Manual's procedures. View "United States v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated defendant's conviction of four drug felonies stemming from his transportation and importation of 6,000 kilos of marijuana. Defendant, a truck driver, was transporting bell peppers from Mexico to Arizona when Customs and Border Protection officers stopped him and found the marijuana hidden within the pepper packages. Defendant claimed that he acted under duress after armed gunmen seized his truck in Mexico and held him at gunpoint for several hours.The panel held that the district court erred in allowing an ICE agent's testimony because the district court did not properly fulfill its gatekeeping role under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). In this case, the district court made no reliability findings about the agent's testimony. The panel also held that the error was not harmless where allowing the agent to testify obviously and substantially impacted the viability of defendant's duress defense. Accordingly, the panel remanded for a new trial. View "United States v. Valencia-Lopez" on Justia Law

After defendant was convicted of wire and securities fraud, he was ordered to pay restitution pursuant to the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA). The government sought to enforce the restitution order pursuant to the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act (FDCPA), and thus applied for a post-judgment writ of garnishment against a bank account that held the Social Security benefits of defendant's wife (the claimant), on the theory that those funds were subject to garnishment pursuant to community property principles of Idaho state law. The district court denied claimant's objections and concluded that the MVRA's enforcement provision, 18 U.S.C. 3613(a), overrides the protections afforded Social Security benefits under the Social Security Act (SSA) so the benefits were garnishable community property.The Ninth Circuit held that it has jurisdiction, following the district court's entry of an order directing the disposition of the funds at issue pursuant to the writ of garnishment. The panel reversed the district court's disposition order and held that claimant's Social Security benefits are not subject to garnishment pursuant to the MVRA in connection with her husband's criminal restitution order. The panel explained that the government was entitled to collect on property only to the same extent defendant had a right to it. In this case, defendant would have no right to his wife's Social Security benefits because the SSA preempts application of Idaho state law community property principles. Accordingly, the panel reversed the order denying claimant's objections, vacated the disposition order, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Swenson" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of petitioner's habeas corpus petition challenging his California conviction and death sentence for first degree murder and attempted rape. Over petitioner's objection, the trial court allowed the prosecution to present evidence of an unadjudicated murder and rape in Los Angeles County. The prosecution then relied on this "other acts evidence" to show the identity of the victim's killer and intent to commit rape and to kill.The panel held that the state court made a crucial erroneous factual determination in linking the two crimes and apparently failed to consider the entire record. Therefore, the California Supreme Court's decision finding no due process violation was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(2). The panel also held that the admission of the evidence constituted a due process violation that prejudiced petitioner. Accordingly, the panel remanded with instructions to issue a conditional writ of habeas corpus. View "Kipp v. Davis" on Justia Law