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

Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights protected in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), do not extend to statements that are nontestimonial. Petitioner appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas relief, challenging his California conviction for premeditated attempted murder, possession of a shank in jail, and participation in a criminal street gang.The panel affirmed the district court's judgment as to petitioner's Bruton claim. The panel held that, because the codefendant statement at issue was nontestimonial and thus not within the Confrontation Clause's protection under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004), the Bruton protections concerning the introduction of statements by non-testifying codefendants did not apply. The panel reversed, however, the district court's denial of the habeas petition as to the sufficiency of the evidence under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), on one of the three offenses for which petitioner was convicted, possession of a dirk or dagger or sharp instrument in jail. View "Lucero v. Holland" on Justia Law

Where a state statute contains two layers of disjunctive lists, the analysis outlined in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990), for applying the categorical approach, applies to both layers of the statute and must be performed twice. A methamphetamine conviction under California Health & Safety Code 11378 or 11379(a) does not qualify as a controlled substance offense under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i).The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's order finding petitioner removable for a controlled substance offense. The panel held that the California definition of methamphetamine was broader than the federal definition. The panel also held that the methamphetamine element applicable to a conviction under sections 11378 or 11379(a) was not divisible, because the different varieties of methamphetamine covered by California law were alternative means of committing a single crime rather than alternative elements of separate crimes. Therefore, the panel did not apply the modified categorical approach. View "Atenia Lorenzo v. Sessions" on Justia Law

California's receipt of stolen property offense is a categorical match for the generic federal crime of receipt of stolen property. The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for attempting to reenter the United States after being deported, holding that defendant's prior California conviction for receipt of stolen property was a felony theft offense that was an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Naturalization Act. The panel also held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment and rejected defendant's remaining claims. View "United States v. Flores" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision finding petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. The panel held that petitioner's convictions for indecent exposure under Wash. Rev. Code 9A.88.010(1) and under Wash. Rev. Code 9A.88.010(2)(b) are not categorically crimes involving moral turpitude. Furthermore, both statutes were indivisible and thus the modified categorical approach was inapplicable. In the absence of a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude, petitioner was eligible to apply for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. The panel remanded for the BIA to consider anew petitioner's request for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. View "Barrera-Lima v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Under Amendment 798 to the Sentencing Guidelines, California robbery is not a "crime of violence." The Ninth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. In this case, defendant was sentenced six months before the effective date of Amendment 798 and the pre-amendment generic extortion definition applied. The panel held that the portion of the amendment that altered the definition of extortion in the Guidelines' "crime of violence" section was not retroactive and the fact that California robbery was no longer a "crime of violence" was not applicable to defendant. The panel rejected defendant's arguments to the contrary and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Bankston" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order of deportation after petitioner was convicted of possession for sale of cocaine salt. The panel held that petitioner was deportable as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii); petitioner's conviction remained a valid ground of deportation despite its expungement under California Penal Code 1203.4; petitioner was not eligible for waiver of deportation under section 212(c); and the BIA did not err in denying deferral of deportation under the Convention Against Torture. View "Lopez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

A conviction for assault with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm or by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury under California Penal Code 245(a)(1), as it was written prior to its amendment in 2011, qualifies as a conviction for a crime of violence within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 16(a). The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for illegal reentry and rejected his collateral attacks on his removal. The panel held that defendant's prior California conviction under section 245(a)(1) required an intentional use of force and was thus a crime of violence. The panel also held that, although the failure to inform defendant that his eligibility for relief could serve as a basis to collaterally attack a removal order, it was not plausible that he would have been granted relief at the time of his removal in this case. View "United States v. Vasquez-Gonzalez" on Justia Law

A person who is prohibited from entering a residence by a court's no-contact order lacks a legitimate expectation of privacy in that residence and may not challenge its search on Fourth Amendment grounds. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress, holding that defendant could not challenge the search of a residence that a no-contact court order barred him from entering. The panel reversed defendant's conviction in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition. View "United States v. Schram" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to commit mail fraud. The panel held that the district court's references to Eastern District of California local codes sufficiently explained the district court's reasons for its finding that the ends of justice were served by granting continuances. Therefore, the panel rejected defendant's Speedy Trial Act claim. The panel noted that, because any error was harmless, it need not reach the issue of whether the district court erred by increasing defendant's sentence for being a manager or supervisor under USSG 3B1.1(b). The panel addressed remaining issues in an unpublished memorandum opinion. View "United States v. McCarns" on Justia Law

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58's requirement that a separate document be filed upon entry of judgment applies in proceedings under 28 U.S.C. 2255. In this case, after petitioner pleaded guilty to fraud-related charges and was sentenced, he filed a motion under section 2255 seeking to vacate his plea and sentence. The district court denied the motion but did not enter judgment in a separate document. Petitioner then filed a notice of appeal just over two months after the district court's denial of his section 2255 motion. The Ninth Circuit held that petitioner's notice of appeal was timely and that the court had jurisdiction over his appeal. View "Kingsbury v. United States" on Justia Law