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

Defendant appealed his sentence imposed for receipt of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(2) and a consecutive prison sentence imposed under 18 U.S.C. 3583(k), upon revocation of his supervised release. The panel held that the district court plainly erred by violating the Constitution's Ex Post Facto Clause when it sentenced defendant under section 3583(k). Therefore, the panel vacated and remanded for complete resentencing.The panel affirmed defendant's 2017 conviction because the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence related to defendant's prior 2007 child pornography conviction under Federal Rules of Evidence 414 and 404(b). The panel explained that because defendant was sentenced for his supervised release violation and his 2017 conviction in the same proceeding, both were based on the same underlying conduct found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and because it appears the district court was attempting to fashion an appropriate "sentencing package" to account for both transgressions, the panel followed its customary practice and remanded for resentencing on both the supervised release violation and the 2017 conviction. View "United States v. Hanson" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed defendant's felon in possession conviction under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). In United States v. Murillo, 422 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2005), a felony was a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year as defined by the statute of violation. In light of intervening authority not previously available to the district court or the parties, the panel explained that United States v. Valencia-Mendoza, 912 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2019), now defines "punishable by" as the sentence to which the defendant is actually exposed under Washington's mandatory sentencing scheme, explicitly overruling Murillo. The panel held that it was bound by Valencia-Mendoza and none of defendant's prior convictions actually exposed him to a term of imprisonment exceeding one year. View "United States v. McAdory" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order granting the government's motion to seize funds in defendant's inmate trust account under section 3664(n) of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. The funds were to be applied to defendant's outstanding restitution debt related to a prior conviction.The panel held that defendant's action was not moot and that de novo review, rather than plain error review, was appropriate in this case. The panel also held that the language and statutory context of section 3664(n) favor Amicus's view that section 3664(n) does not apply to periods of pretrial detention, and that the rule of lenity resolves any remaining ambiguity in defendant's favor. View "United States v. Lillard" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm. The panel held that defendant's prior Nevada conviction for attempted battery with substantial bodily harm in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.481(2)(b) and 193.330 qualifies as a felony conviction for a crime of violence under USSG 2K2.1. In this case, it was clear that the state treated defendant's conviction as a felony. The panel held that it was not evident that there was a realistic probability that a defendant could be convicted of Nevada attempted battery with substantial bodily harm without the attempted use of violent force. View "United States v. Fitzgerald" on Justia Law

Where, as here, the record shows that the medically necessary treatment for a prisoner's gender dysphoria is gender confirmation surgery (GCS), and responsible prison officials deny such treatment with full awareness of the prisoner's suffering, those officials violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's entry of a permanent injunction after the district court concluded that gender confirmation surgery is medically necessary for plaintiff, a male-to-female transgender prisoner in the custody of the Idaho Department of Correction, and ordered the State to provide the surgery. The panel held that the record, as construed by the district court, established that plaintiff has a serious medical need, that the appropriate medical treatment is GCS, and that prison authorities have not provided that treatment despite full knowledge of plaintiff's ongoing and extreme suffering and medical needs. In so holding, the panel rejected the State's portrait of a reasoned disagreement between qualified medical professionals. The panel noted that its analysis was individual to plaintiff and was based on the record.The panel also noted that it applied the dictates of the Eighth Amendment in an area of increased social awareness: transgender health care, and that the Eighth Amendment inquiry takes into account the medical community's developing understanding of what treatments are safe and medically necessary to treat gender dysphoria. Finally, the panel largely rejected the State's remaining contentions, but vacated the injunction to the extent it applied to the named defendants in their individual capacities. View "Edmo v. Corizon, Inc." on Justia Law

A district court does not need to decide on a defendant's eligibility for an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction in his Guidelines level before listening to the defendant's allocution. The Ninth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence for possession of a firearm as a felon and reversed for resentencing. The panel held that the district court erred in this case by concluding that it could not listen to defendant's allocution before determining whether a reduction of acceptance of responsibility was warranted, and the error was plain, affecting defendant's substantial rights and seriously affecting the fairness of the proceedings. View "United States v. Green" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a habeas corpus petition challenging petitioner's California conviction and sentence for the first-degree murder and sexual assault of an eight-year-old girl. The panel held that the state court reasonably rejected petitioner's Napue claim challenging the serology evidence where, even assuming that there was no reasonable basis for the state court to deny the claim as to the first two Napue requirements, the panel could not say that it would be unreasonable to conclude that the testimony did not satisfy the materiality element. The panel noted that, even setting aside the serology testimony, the case against petitioner was devastating and largely unchallenged. The panel also held that, even assuming counsel's performance was deficient, it could not say that the state court would have erred in finding no reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. View "Panah v. Chappell" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions for conspiracy to traffic counterfeit goods, and conspiracy to commit copyright infringement and to introduce misbranded food into interstate commerce. Defendants' convictions stemmed from their scheme to sell counterfeit 5-hour Energy liquid dietary supplements.The Ninth Circuit held that it need not resolve the issue of whether prior civil deposition testimony of a witness, who has subsequently invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, may be introduced against defendants in a criminal trial without violating their Confrontation Clause right to confront the witnesses against them. Rather, the panel held that even if the district court erred by concluding that the witnesses were unavailable, the error was harmless because the outcome of the trial would not have changed had the depositions been excluded. View "United States v. Shayota" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for attempted illegal reentry after deportation. The district court applied a ten-level enhancement to defendant's base offense level under USSG 2L1.2(b)(3)(A), which applies to a defendant charged under 8 U.S.C. 1326 who was previously ordered deported or removed and who subsequently committed a felony offense for which the sentence imposed was five years or more.The panel held that the single sentence rule in USSG 4A1.2(a)(2) applies to the enhancements in USSG 2L1.2(b)(2) and (b)(3). In this case, the district court aggregated defendant's two 3.5-year sentences to produce a seven-year sentence for purposes of applying the enhancement, relying on section 4A1.2(a)(2). Accordingly, the panel rejected defendant's argument that the district court wrongly applied the single sentence rule in calculating his sentence. View "United States v. Cuevas-Lopez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for second degree murder and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the murder conviction and held that the district did not plainly err in failing to instruct the jury on absence of heat of passion as an element of second-degree murder.The panel also held that, because second degree murder can be committed recklessly, rather than intentionally, it does not categorically constitute a crime of violence under the elements clause. Likewise, second degree murder cannot constitute a crime of violence under the unconstitutionally vague residual clause. Therefore, the panel reversed defendant's conviction for discharging a firearm. Finally, the panel held that the district court plainly erred by imposing mandatory restitution under 18 U.S.C. 3663A, because second degree murder is not categorically a crime of violence. View "United States v. Begay" on Justia Law