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

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's appeal of the IJ's determinations that petitioner was removable and ineligible for asylum. The IJ determined that petitioner's prior California felony conviction for possession of marijuana was an "aggravated felony" and an offense "relating to a controlled substance" that rendered her removable. However, petitioner argued that the conviction was no longer a predicate to removal because it was recalled and reclassified as a misdemeanor under California's Proposition 64.The panel held that valid state convictions retain their immigration consequences even when modified or expunged for reasons of state public policy. Therefore, the panel agreed with the BIA that petitioner's initial conviction retained its immigration consequences and rendered her removable. View "Prado v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion arguing that his sentence was improperly enhanced under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1). The panel held that defendant's underlying offense of Robbery on a Government Reservation in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2111, even if done by intimidation alone, is categorically a crime of violence under the elements clause of section 924(c)(3)(A). View "United States v. Fultz" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings concerning Defendant Carpenter and Velazquez's joint trial where they were convicted of conspiracy to kidnap and kidnapping. The panel held that the common law right of access attaches to pre-trial offers of proof for a duress defense. In this case, because Carpenter failed to provide a compelling reason to overcome this presumptive right of access, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion to seal her proffer. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting "other act" evidence under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 404(b). However, although the district court erred in admitting evidence of Velazquez's methamphetamine use, the panel held that the error was harmless. View "United States v. Carpenter" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged the district court's limited grant of habeas relief as to his death sentence and the state cross-appealed. Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder, first-degree robbery, rape, and sodomy. The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of habeas relief, finding that the California Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law and that its holdings were not contrary to federal law.The panel held that petitioner has shown cause to overcome the procedural default of his claims for ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct for the suppression of his toxicology test results. Therefore, the panel remanded for the district court to consider whether petitioner has established prejudice as to either claim. Finally, the panel declined to expand the certificate of appealability to include petitioner's uncertified claims. View "Bradford v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit joined the Eleventh Circuit in holding that a district court may order restitution for all losses resulting from a fraudulent scheme, even those caused by conduct occurring outside the statute of limitations. The panel affirmed the district court's order requiring defendant to pay in restitution the full amount of Medicare's losses from convictions arising from a fraudulent healthcare scheme. The panel held that the evidence was sufficient to support the district court's restitution order; the district court properly included losses relating to the overall fraudulent scheme in the restitution amount; and the district court did not plainly err by ordering restitution for the entire amount of damages caused by the fraudulent scheme as alleged in the indictment. View "United States v. Anieze-Smith" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for seven counts of health care fraud. The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction, holding that the prosecutor's statement—that the office staff completing the intake form copied defendant's history and physical—was not improper. Therefore, the district court did not err in overruling defendant's objection to the prosecutor's statement. The panel also held that the district court satisfied Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32's required factual findings on the loss calculation; sufficient evidence supported the district court's finding that defendant intended the loss amounts underlying his sentencing enhancements; and the district court did not plainly err by applying an enhancement under USSG 3C1.3 for committing a crime while on supervised release. However, the district court violated the ex-post facto clause by sentencing defendant under the 2016 Sentencing Guidelines Manual on the six counts arising from conduct that occurred before the Guidelines Manual revision. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence in part and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Wijegoonaratna" on Justia Law

The statute of limitations for a criminal defendant's 42 U.S.C. 1983 action is not tolled under California Code of Civil Procedure 356 during the pendency of an appeal from a conviction, in light of the Supreme Court's rule in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In this case, plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 after his convictions for possession of a controlled substance and a smoking device were overturned, because the Superior Court erred in denying plaintiff's suppression motion.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and held that plaintiff's claims for unlawful stop and detention, false arrest, and false imprisonment were time-barred because Heck did not legally prevent plaintiff from commencing those claims during his appeal. Therefore, tolling under section 356 was not triggered. The panel held that plaintiff's malicious prosecution and Monell actions were also barred, because reversal of his conviction was not a favorable termination. View "Mills v. City of Covina" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order granting defendant's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), in light of Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782. The panel clarified that, without an explicit and explicit drug quantity finding by the original sentencing judge, drug quantities in an adopted presentencing report were not binding in section 3582(c)(2) proceedings. Therefore, the panel remanded to the district court for supplemental findings of drug quantity and, if appropriate, resentencing. View "United States v. Huaracha Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's order finding petitioner removable under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The panel held that petitioner's prior conviction under Oregon Revised Statutes section 164.395 was a categorical theft offense and was therefore an aggravated felony under section 101(a)(43)(G) of the INA. The panel held that the record supported the BIA's denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture where the BIA agreed with the IJ's conclusion that petitioner failed to establish that he would more likely than not face a particularized risk of torture with the acquiescence of a public official in Guatemala. View "Lopez-Aguilar v. Barr" on Justia Law

In the wake of the 2014 amendments to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12, the good-cause standard in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(c)(3), rather than plain error review, continues to apply when a defendant attempts to raise new theories on appeal in support of a motion to suppress. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress a gun and ammunition found during a traffic stop. The panel held that defendant did not show good cause for failing to present in his pretrial motion the new theory he raised for suppression in this appeal, nor has he challenged the district court's rejection of the one theory that he did raise. View "United States v. Guerrero" on Justia Law