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

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioners' joint petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioners contend that the recently enacted First Step Act's amendment to the good time provision requires the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to recalculate their sentences immediately.The panel held that the Act's good time credit amendment did not take immediate effect upon enactment but will become effective with the establishment of the "risk and needs assessment system" on July 19, 2019. The panel stated that Congress provided "clear direction" in paragraph 102(b)(2) to delay the implementation of the good time credit amendment until the Attorney General establishes the "risk and needs assessment system." Furthermore, the delay was not a drafting oversight and the delay did not violate the Constitution. View "Bottinelli v. Salazar" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to use interstate telephone calls in the commission of a murder-for-hire in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1958. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's conclusion that defendant's promise to forgive an uncollectable debt satisfies the pecuniary value requirement of section 1958.The panel held that the pecuniary value requirement does not require the murder-for-hire agreement to comport with contract rules, as Congress did not aim section 1958 only at murderous businessmen. In this case, defendant's promise of loan forgiveness satisfied section 1958's pecuniary value requirement. In so holding, the panel joined its sister circuits' understanding that section 1958 does not require that the promised economic advantage be enforceable. View "United States v. Phillips" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The panel held that defendant's prior conviction for battery resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of section 243(d) of the California Penal Code, qualifies as a "crime of violence" as defined in USSG 4B1.2(a)(1). Accordingly, the district court did not err in its sentencing determination. View "United States v. Perez" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for misdemeanor offenses stemming from his unlawful BASE jump in Yosemite National Park. The panel held that the permit exception in 36 C.F.R. 2.17(a)(3) -- which prohibits delivering a person or object by parachute, helicopter, or other airborne means -- is an affirmative defense for which defendant, not the government, bore the burden of proof. Therefore, the panel rejected defendant's contention that the government failed to establish all elements of section 2.17(a)(3), and held that defendant did not meet the burden of proof at trial. The court also held that the magistrate judge's reference to a news article about the trial, though perhaps imprudent, did not mandate recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455(a). View "United States v. Carey" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment on remand denying a motion by two medical marijuana growers to enjoin their federal prosecutions for violations of the Controlled Substances Act.The panel held that section 538 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act authorized defendants to seek to enjoin prosecution, and thus they bear the burden of showing that it is more likely than not that the state's medical marijuana laws "completely authorized" their conduct. Therefore, the district court did not err by placing the burden of proof on defendants. The panel rejected defendants' contention that the government must procure a jury verdict of noncompliance in Washington State Court before it can prosecute them for their federal crimes, and held that Washington's procedural rules should not be imported into section 538. Furthermore, defendants may not resort to common law defenses to show that the Medical Use of Cannabis Act (MUCA) authorizes their conduct, and the district court correctly focused on their compliance with MUCA itself. Finally, the panel held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendants were not "qualified patients." View "United States v. Evans" on Justia Law

The en banc court vacated and remanded defendant's sentence of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for his role in a robbery that resulted in murder. Defendant was 17 years old at the time. The Supreme Court later held that mandatory LWOP sentences for juvenile offenders violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 465 (2012).The Ninth Circuit held that the district court's analysis during resentencing was inconsistent with the constitutional principles the Supreme Court delineated in Miller and subsequent case law. In this case, based on the district court's articulated reasoning at defendant's resentencing, the panel could not tell whether the district court appropriately considered the relevant evidence of defendant's youth or the evidence of his post-incarceration efforts at rehabilitation. Furthermore, defendant provided evidence related to a number of the Miller factors at the resentencing hearing, including his abusive upbringing, his extensive exposure to drugs and alcohol as a child, his difficulty in high school because of his Native American traditions, and his father's inexplicable insistence that he reject the government's favorable plea offer. Most significantly, defendant offered abundant evidence on the critical issue that he was not irreparably corrupt or irredeemable because he had done what he could to improve himself within the confines of incarceration. View "United States v. Briones" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's dismissal of petitioner's application for cancellation of removal. The panel deferred to the BIA's decision in Matter of Cortes Medina that a conviction for indecent exposure under California Penal Code 314(1) is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). The panel held that it must defer to Cortes Medina pursuant to the framework outlined in National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967, 982 (2005). Finally, the panel held that Cortes Medina applied retroactively to petitioner's case such that his section 314(1) conviction was a CIMT that made him ineligible for cancellation of removal. View "Cruz Betansos v. Barr" on Justia Law

18 U.S.C. 3599 permits federal appointment of additional counsel to represent a California death-row prisoner who is seeking state clemency where the State of California also provides for state clemency counsel. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of petitioner's motion for the appointment of additional counsel from the Federal Public Defender Services for the District of Arizona (FPD-AZ). The panel held that the availability of state-appointed clemency counsel does not prevent the district court from appointing additional clemency counsel under section 3599 during post-habeas proceedings. Therefore, the panel remanded for the district court to determine whether appointment of additional counsel to represent petitioner is appropriate under the statute. View "Gonzales Samayoa v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 on petitioner's claims relating to his first degree murder conviction and death sentence. The panel held that Rule 32.2(a) of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure is independent of federal law and adequate to warrant preclusion of federal review. Therefore, the panel may not review petitioner's judicial bias claim unless he establishes cause and prejudice. In this case, petitioner failed to demonstrate cause to overcome the procedural default of his claim and the panel need not address prejudice.The panel also affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, because trial counsel did not perform deficiently by not moving for a judge's recusal and appellate counsel's failure to raise issues on direct appeal did not constitute ineffective assistance when appeal would not have provided grounds for reversal. Furthermore, petitioner did not establish cause and prejudice to overcome the procedural default of his Brady claim; the panel lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion; challenges to the jury instructions denied; and remaining claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and sentencing claims rejected. View "Martinez v. Ryan" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit filed an order withdrawing the original opinion and issued a new opinion affirming the district court's denial of petitioner's habeas corpus petition challenging his capital sentence for two first-degree murders.The panel held that petitioner was not entitled to relief on his Eighth Amendment claim against arbitrary and capricious sentencing, because he could not show that the jury's consideration of the facts that he poisoned a witness's dogs and threatened her property had a substantial and injurious effect on the jury's decision to impose the death penalty. The panel also held that petitioner has not presented clear and convincing evidence to rebut the California Supreme Court's finding that he validly waived his state habeas exhaustion petition. View "Kirkpatrick v. Chappell" on Justia Law