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

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging that a police officer used excessive force. Plaintiff alleged that excessive force was used when the officer pointed a gun at plaintiff's head in the context of a felony arrest after plaintiff had already been searched, was calm and compliant, and was being watched over by a second armed deputy. The panel held that pointing a loaded gun at the suspect's head in these circumstances constituted excessive force under the Fourth Amendment, but that the officers here were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of the traffic stop. View "Thompson v. Copeland" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction in the United States District Court for the District of Guam based on his guilty plea for attempted possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction and rejected defendant's argument that his constitutional right under Article III, Section 2, clause 3 and the Sixth Amendment to be tried in a state or district where the crime was committed was violated because Guam is neither a state nor a district. The panel held that Congress never extended Article III, Section 2, clause 3 to Guam. The panel explained that the Sixth Amendment, which provides for the right to a jury trial in "the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed," did apply to Guam. Congress deemed Guam a "district," defendant's crime occurred in part in the district of Guam, and therefore venue in Guam was proper. View "United States v. Obak" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit circuit vacated defendant's sentence after the district court denied defendant a minor role reduction under USSG 3B1.2(b). The panel rejected defendant's contention that the district court erred because it did not consider or mention the five factors listed in section 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C), and failed to mention other factors it did consider when it concluded that defendant did not qualify for a minor-role adjustment. The panel explained that the district court was not obligated to tick off the factors on the record to show that it considered them, and the panel had no trouble determining from the sentencing memoranda and the transcript of the sentencing hearing that the district court was well aware of the factors added by Amendment 794. The panel held, however, that the decision to deny the adjustment rested on incorrect interpretations of section 3B1.2 and Amendment 794. In this case, there was no evidence that defendant had a proprietary interest in the outcome of the operation or otherwise stood to benefit more than minimally, and the government did not account for defendant's limited understanding of the overall scope and structure of the criminal operation. View "United States v. Aguilar Diaz" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for attempting to reenter the United States after a prior removal. Defendant was previously removed for committing an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B) because he was convicted of felony possession of methamphetamine in violation of California Health & Safety Code section 11378. The panel held that because section 11378 had a trafficking element and required a sufficiently culpable state of mind, section 11378 was a drug trafficking aggravated felony under section 1101(a)(43)(B) where the record of conviction established that the substance involved was federally controlled. Therefore, removal under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) based on such a conviction under section 11378 was not fundamentally unfair. View "United States v. Verduzco-Rangel" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit certified the following question of criminal law to the California Supreme Court: Does a finding of probable cause at a preliminary hearing preclude a false arrest claim? The panel panel withdrew the case from submission and stayed further proceedings pending final action by the state court. View "Patterson v. City of Yuba" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit certified the following question of criminal law to the California Supreme Court: Does a finding of probable cause at a preliminary hearing preclude a false arrest claim? The panel panel withdrew the case from submission and stayed further proceedings pending final action by the state court. View "Patterson v. City of Yuba" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for committing a violent crime in aid of racketeering. The panel held that the district court committed harmless error by instructing the jury on the federal definition of "knowingly," which lacked a self-defense instruction, rather than on the Hawaii definition. The panel also held that defendant's prior burglary and false imprisonment convictions qualified as crimes of violence under USSG 4B1.2's residual clause. View "United States v. Adkins" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss a count charging him with possession of body armor by a violent felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. 931(a)(1) and 924(a)(7). The panel held that defendant's prior conviction for attempted first degree murder under Washington law was a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(a) because it required specific intent and had as an element an intentional, threatened, attempted, or actual use of force. Likewise, attempted first degree murder under Washington law is a crime of violence under USSG 4B1.2(a). Therefore, the panel also affirmed the district court's interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines. View "United States v. Studhorse" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss a count charging him with possession of body armor by a violent felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. 931(a)(1) and 924(a)(7). The panel held that defendant's prior conviction for attempted first degree murder under Washington law was a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(a) because it required specific intent and had as an element an intentional, threatened, attempted, or actual use of force. Likewise, attempted first degree murder under Washington law is a crime of violence under USSG 4B1.2(a). Therefore, the panel also affirmed the district court's interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines. View "United States v. Studhorse" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a petition challenging the denial of petitioner's naturalization application. The panel held that petitioner's conviction for sodomy where the victim was unable to consent, in violation of California Penal Code 286(i), was an aggravated felony. The panel held that a conviction under CPC 286(i), was an aggravated felony as a rape offense under 8 U.S.C.1101(a)(43)(A). The conduct prohibited by CPC 286(i) fell entirely within the generic definition of "rape" as articulated in Castro-Baez v. Reno, 217 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2000). Therefore, petitioner failed to meet the good moral character requirement for naturalization. View "Elmakhzoumi v. Sessions" on Justia Law