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

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

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of habeas relief as to the penalty phase, because petitioner's counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not investigating and presenting mitigating evidence at the penalty phase. Applying de novo review, the panel held that counsel did not properly investigate petitioner's background, and thus the trial court at the penalty phase was not presented with substantial mitigation evidence regarding petitioner's education and incarceration, his diffuse brain damage, and his history of substance abuse. The panel held that this raised a reasonable probability that, had the trial court been presented with the mitigation evidence in the first instance, the outcome would have been different. In this case, petitioner may have been spared the death penalty and been imprisoned for life instead. Accordingly, the panel remanded with instructions to grant relief against the death penalty. View "Washington v. Ryan" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for knowingly engaging in sexual contact with another person without that other person's permission on an international flight. The panel rejected defendant's contention that the government was also required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he subjectively knew that his victim did not consent. The panel explained that unwanted sexual contact of the type defendant engaged in -- touching first, and arguing later that he "thought" the victim consented -- was precisely what 18 U.S.C. 2244(b) criminalizes. The panel also concluded that defendant was properly Mirandized and that the district court acted within its discretion in refusing to read back to the jury portions of the victim's testimony. View "United States v. Price" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed defendant's conviction for assaulting a fellow passenger on a commercial flight from Minneapolis to Los Angeles, holding that venue was not proper in the Central District of California. The court held that any erroneous application of the Speedy Trial Act would not have changed the outcome and that defendant did not waive her venue argument by failing to raise it until after the government's case-in-chief.Because the parties did not dispute that the assault ended before the flight entered the airspace of the Central District of California, the panel held that venue in the district court was improper. In this case, there was no doubt that the assault occurred before the flight entered the Central District's airspace. The panel held that the first paragraph of 18 U.S.C. 3237(a) and the second paragraph of section 3237(a) did not confer venue. Furthermore, 18 U.S.C. 3238 did not confer venue. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Lozoya" on Justia Law