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

The Ninth Circuit dismissed defendant's appeal of the district court's order imposing a probation condition requiring her to register as a sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act (SORNA). The panel held that the text and structure of SORNA's residual clause make it clear the clause requires the application of a noncategorical approach to determine whether a conviction is for an offense involving "any conduct that by its nature is a sex offense against a minor." In this case, the record supported the district court's determination that defendant committed a "sex offense" as defined by SORNA and thus she was required to register as a sex offender under that law. The panel stated that defendant had adequate notice; the district court did not delegate the Article III judicial power in imposing the sentence; her sentence was legally imposed; and the appellate waiver in her plea agreement was enforceable. View "United States v. Dailey" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for distribution and possession of material involving the sexual exploitation of minors. Because there was no physical intrusion into defendant's residence when FBI agents used wireless tracking software to detect the signal strength of the address of defendant's wireless device, the panel applied the Katz test in holding that the agents did not engage in a search under the Fourth Amendment. The panel held that defendant lacked any expectation of privacy in the emission of the signal strength of the MAC address emanating from outside his apartment. Furthermore, even if defendant harbored a subjective expectation of privacy, that expectation was not one society was prepared to recognize as reasonable.The panel held that the district court did not err in denying defendant’s request for a Franks hearing, because defendant did not present any evidence that the agent acted knowingly, intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth in preparing the affidavit. The court also held that none of the alleged false statements or omissions materially affected the probable cause determination. View "United States v. Norris" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for attempted transport of aliens and rejected his claim of prosecutorial misconduct. Specifically, defendant alleged that the prosecution committed misconduct by introducing evidence of, and commenting on, his post-arrest silence at trial. However, the panel held that defendant was not silent in response to an agent's questioning on the topic of his coconspirators, and it was not error for the prosecution to introduce evidence of, and comment on, that part of the interrogation including argument characterizing defendant as being evasive about other people involved in smuggling. Therefore, the prosecution properly relied on admissible evidence to rebut the theory that defendant had always intended to turn aliens he picked up over to border patrol. View "United States v. Garcia-Morales" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for receipt of child pornography. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence, under Federal Rule of Evidence 414, of defendant's prior state conviction for sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree. In this case, the term "child molestation" encompassed both the crime for which defendant was previously convicted and the present charge, and the prior conviction was relevant. After applying the balancing factors in the LeMay test, the panel held that the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighed its unfair prejudice. Finally, the district court did not err in rendering this evidentiary decision before it had been presented at trial. View "United States v. Thornhill" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's habeas corpus petition challenging his Nevada conviction and death sentence for four counts of first degree murder. Given that petitioner's underlying ineffective assistance of counsel claims lack merit, the panel need not resolve whether the relevant Nevada law was adequate or if it is, whether petitioner can overcome his procedural default and obtain federal review of the merits of his ineffective assistance claims. Even if the panel held in petitioner's favor in either of those questions and reached the merits of the claims, the panel would affirm the district court's denial of relief.The panel also held that the Nevada Supreme Court's determination -- that petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated when the state's expert made reference during his testimony to test results that he had obtained from petitioner's expert -- was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of controlling Supreme Court case law. Furthermore, the panel rejected petitioner's claim regarding change of venue, the testimony of the mother of the victim, and improper statements by the prosecutor. Finally, the panel declined to expand the certificate of appealability. View "Floyd v. Filson" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence for illegal reentry into the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. The panel held, and the government conceded, that the district court erred in concluding that, in calculating the Sentencing Guidelines range, proof of continuous presence in the United States was not required. The panel gave some weight to the inference that a non-citizen who had previously returned after being removed and who had family in the United States would have made efforts to stay in the country, but that inference was not enough to carry the government's burden.The panel also held that the district court erred in its alternative holding that defendant was continuously present in the United States from 2004 to 2017. The panel applied the clear and convincing standard, and held that the government failed to meet its burden of proving defendant's continuous presence. Accordingly, the panel remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Valle" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit withdrew its previous opinion and filed an amended opinion vacating defendant's sentence and remanding for resentencing. In this case, defendant had pleaded guilty to a single count of possession of a firearm as a felon.The panel held that a district court does not need to decide a defendant's eligibility for an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction in his Guidelines level before listening to the defendant's allocution. The panel held that the sentencing court erred by concluding that it could not first hear from the defendant before determining whether a reduction for acceptance of responsibility was warranted under the Guidelines. The court further held that this misapprehension was plain error. View "United States v. Green" on Justia Law

Under Guam v. Marquez, 963 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir. 1992), it is structural error not to instruct the jury orally as to the entire substantive law the jury must apply. The Ninth Circuit reversed defendant's drug-related conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial judge plainly erred by failing to deliver an oral charge to the jury in this case. The panel explained that a trial court does not satisfy its duty to instruct jurors in a criminal case just by providing those jurors with a set of written instructions to use during deliberations. Therefore, the panel remanded for a new trial. View "United States v. Becerra" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion and remanded with instructions to grant the motion. The panel held that defendant's first degree armed robbery in violation of Oregon Revised Statutes 164.415 is not a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).The panel held that United States v. Strickland, 860 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2017), which held that Oregon third degree robbery is not a violent felony under the force clause of the ACCA because it does not require physically violent force, is not clearly irreconcilable with Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544 (2019), which addressed a Florida robbery statute that requires resistance by the victim that is overcome by the physical force of the offender. Finally, even assuming that section 164.415(1) is divisible, the district court erred in finding that defendant had been convicted of armed robbery under subsection (b). View "United States v. Shelby" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that the district court did not err by denying his motion to suppress evidence found as a result of the search of his cell phone, seized from his rental car after a high-speed chase. In this case, the phone contained photos tying him to the firearm that was recovered from the car.As a preliminary matter, the panel held, in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Byrd v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1518, 1530 (2018), that it did not need to address the issue of whether defendant lacked standing to challenge the search before addressing defendant's Fourth Amendment claims, because such an inquiry was not jurisdictional. The panel held that the searches of both the car and the phone were lawful, because the phone was seized as part of a valid inventory search; probable cause supported the two warrants issued to search the phone; and there was a sufficient factual basis for the issuing magistrate judges to conclude, independently of the affiants' beliefs, that evidence might be found on defendant's cell phone. View "United States v. Garay" on Justia Law