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

Defendant appealed the district court's finding that he "frequented" a prohibited place in violation of a special condition of his supervised release. The special condition was imposed, along with other special conditions, after defendant pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography. The district court concluded that defendant violated his special condition by watching a pornographic movie at an adult store.The Ninth Circuit reversed in part, holding that the district court erred in finding that defendant frequented a prohibited place, because defendant visited an adult store only once. The panel affirmed in part, holding that the district court did not err by concluding that the special condition was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, because the condition was not meaningfully distinguishable from a condition the panel approved in United States v. Gnirke, 775 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2015), and properly abridged defendant's right to free speech in order to effectively address his sexual deviance problem. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Ochoa" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition for habeas corpus relief challenging petitioner's Arizona state murder conviction and death penalty. Applying deferential review under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), the panel held that the district court properly held that petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was not violated when his trial counsel elected not to challenge petitioner's competency to waive counsel, despite counsel's knowledge that he had a history of mental health issues; the district court properly concluded that petitioner's due process rights were not violated by the state trial court's failure to hold a competency hearing sua sponte; and the district court properly held that the Arizona Supreme Court's opinion concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's final continuance motion was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.The panel expanded the certificate of appealability (COA) to include the question of whether petitioner's constitutional rights were violated at trial through use of restraints, but affirmed the denial of the writ on that issue. The panel declined to expand the COA further. View "Dixon v. Ryan" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed defendant's conviction for eluding examination or inspection by immigration officers in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1325(a)(2). The panel held that an alien who crosses into the country at a non-designated time or place is not guilty under section 1325(a)(2). Instead, to convict a defendant under section 1325(a)(2), the government must prove that the alien's criminal conduct occurred at a time and place designated for "examination or inspection by immigration officers." In this case, the government conceded that defendant crossed into the United States far from a port of entry and thus failed to make such a showing. View "United States v. Corrales-Vazquez" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of an Arizona state prisoner's 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas relief, challenging his conviction for four counts of first degree murder and his capital sentence. The panel held that the record failed to establish that plaintiff's pre-trial counsel were incompetent or provided constitutionally deficient representation. Therefore, petitioner's challenges to his waiver of counsel and guilty pleas, as both claims were premised on constitutionally inadequate representation, failed.The panel also held that there was no reasonable probability that state post-conviction proceedings would have turned out differently if petitioner had advanced a pre-trial ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and the panel could not excuse the procedural default of that claim. Furthermore, the state court reasonably concluded that sentencing counsel was not ineffective, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing on that claim. Finally, the panel held that any causal nexus during petitioner's sentencing was harmless. View "Djerf v. Ryan" on Justia Law

18 U.S.C. 2423(c), which prohibits engaging in illicit sexual conduct in foreign places, did not exceed Congress's authority under the Foreign Commerce Clause, as applied to the criminalization of non-commercial sexual abuse of a minor. The Ninth Circuit applied rational basis review and held that the elements of the crime fairly relate to foreign commerce.The panel affirmed defendant's conviction for travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, engaging in illicit sexual conduct abroad, attempted witness tampering, and obstruction of justice. The panel rejected defendant's claims of error regarding the jury instructions and claims of evidentiary error. However, the panel held that the district court miscalculated defendant's guidelines range by failing to apply an obstruction of justice enhancement under USSG 3C1.1. Therefore, the panel vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Lindsay" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized after law enforcement agents entered into defendant's condo without a warrant. The agents secured a court order authorizing insertion of a tracking device to conduct the controlled delivery, but their entry into defendant's condo to secure the package was warrantless.The panel held that the record supported the district court's decision that the agents' warrantless search was justified by exigent circumstances, defendant's subsequent consent for a more thorough search was not therefore tainted by an illegal entry, and the district court did not err by denying the motion to suppress. View "United States v. Iwai" on Justia Law

A defendant is eligible for attorneys' fees under the Hyde Amendment only where there is egregious prosecutorial misconduct that renders the litigating position of the United States as a whole "vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith."The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for attorneys' fees under the Hyde Amendment. In this case, defendant was not eligible for attorneys' fees because she conceded that there was no prosecutorial misconduct in her case. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. The panel also affirmed the district court's denial of her motion for reconsideration. View "United States v. Mixon" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of defendant's speedy trial claim. Defendant argued that the federal government's delay in starting its criminal proceedings until the state's proceedings had concluded violated his speedy trial rights.The panel held that, because the Supreme Court directs courts to take an ad hoc, case-by-case approach to a defendant's claim that the right to a speedy trial has been violated, the panel declined to adopt a rule that delaying a trial in order to allow a concurrent judicial proceeding to conclude is a valid or neutral reason that does not weigh against the government. The panel remanded for further proceedings in this case, because it could not determine from the district court's orders whether the district court erroneously applied a bright-line rule. View "United States v. Myers" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's order denying his untimely motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Petitioner alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during his removal proceedings. The BIA agreed that petitioner's prior counsel performed deficiently, but denied the motion to reopen after concluding that he failed to show prejudice.The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review with respect to petitioner's claims for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and relief under former 8 U.S.C. 212(c). The panel held that the BIA analyzed petitioner's new prejudice evidence under standards more stringent than were proper. Although the more-likely-than-not standard governs the merits of a CAT claim, in the context of a motion to reopen for ineffective assistance, the petitioner need not show that he would win or lose on any claims. Rather, the question with respect to prejudice is whether counsel's deficient performance may have affected the outcome of the proceedings, which means that the petitioner need only show plausible grounds for relief. The panel denied the petition for review with respect to all other claims and held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in rejecting petitioner's claims. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Flores v. Barr" on Justia Law

The en banc court granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of cancellation of removal. The BIA held that petitioner failed to demonstrate that her prior conviction was not for a disqualifying federal offense and therefore had not met her burden of showing that she was eligible for cancellation of removal.The en banc court held that, in the context of eligibility for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b), a petitioner's state-law conviction does not bar relief where the record is ambiguous as to whether the conviction constitutes a disqualifying predicate offense. The en banc court held that the statute under which petitioner was convicted was overbroad at the time of her conviction. The en banc court overruled its decision in Young v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), that, under Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013), an ambiguous record of conviction does not demonstrate that a petitioner was convicted of a disqualifying federal offense. Accordingly, the panel reversed and remanded. View "Marinelarena v. Barr" on Justia Law