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

Plaintiffs challenged the construction of a high-speed rail system (the "Project") that will run through the downtown area of Honolulu under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470 to 470x-6, and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. 303. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on most of the claims and enjoined construction of the fourth phase of the Project pending a remand to the agency on the remaining Section 4(f) claims. The court concluded that plaintiffs timely appealed the dismissal of the remainder of their claims; the court had jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1) or 1291; the Environmental Impact Statement's (EIS's) identification of the project objectives and analysis of alternatives satisfied NEPA's requirements. Further, defendants have not violated Section 4(f) where they considered a Managed Lanes Alternative as well as other alternatives, and where they have made a good faith and reasonable effort to identify known archaeological sites along the proposed Project route and have developed an appropriate plan for dealing with sites that may be discovered during construction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "HonoluluTraffic.com, et al. v. FTA, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry. Defendant had a prior state court conviction for attempted rape in the fourth degree under Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, 531-532, 770. At issue was whether Delaware's criminal attempt statutes constituted a federal generic attempt crime for purposes of imposing an enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines. Because Delaware's statutory definition of "substantial step" was materially different from and encompassed more conduct that the federal generic definition, the Delaware attempt statute criminalized more conduct than the federal generic attempt offense. Therefore, defendant's prior state conviction for an attempt offense did not qualify as a federal generic attempt under the Taylor categorical approach. In light of this statutory definition, the court concluded that the district court erred in imposing the enhancement. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded, concluding that it need not address defendant's remaining arguments. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Monterroso" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the mandatory uniform policy at their children's public elementary school (RGES) under the First Amendment. The court concluded that RGES's inclusion of the motto "Tomorrow's Leaders" on its uniform shirts compelled speech because it mandated the written motto on the uniform shirts. The court also concluded that the exemption for uniforms of "nationally recognized youth organizations such as Boy Scouts and Girls Scouts on a regular meeting days" was content-based. Accordingly, the court concluded that strict scrutiny review applied. Because the district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), RGES was not required to make any showing regarding its justifications for including the written motto or the exemption in the policy. Further, plaintiffs were not given the opportunity to produce any countervailing evidence. The court reversed and remanded for the district court to determine whether defendants' countervailing interest was sufficiently compelling to justify requiring the written motto and the exemption. View "Frudden v. Pilling" on Justia Law

BP shareholders filed a class action alleging that the company knowingly, or with deliberate recklessness, made false and misleading statements about the condition of the Alaskan pipelines and BP's pipeline maintenance and leak detection practices prior to and in the wake of the first oil spill. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's partial dismissal of their complaint under federal securities laws. The court concluded that plaintiffs have adequately pled falsity and materiality, as well as scienter for statements regarding the corrosion rate; plaintiffs have adequately pled falsity and materiality, as well as scienter for statements distinguishing the WOA and EOA lines; plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege scienter for statements regarding BP's "World Class" leak detection system and corrosion monitoring program; plaintiffs adequately pled falsity and scienter for an annual report statement regarding compliance with environmental laws and regulations; and when the court considered the allegations holistically and accepted them to be true, the inference that BP was, at the very least, deliberately reckless as to the false or misleading nature of their public statements was at least as compelling as any opposing inference. Accordingly, the court reversed in part and affirmed in part. View "Reese v. Malone" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging California's concealed handgun laws. At issue was whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen had a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. The court concluded that the right to bear arms included the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home and that carrying weapons for the lawful purpose of self defense was a central component of the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment required that the state permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home. The California scheme did not allow the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen to bear arms in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Because the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits eschewed history and tradition in their analysis of the constitutionality of such regulations, the court found their approaches unpersuasive. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court erred in denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the Second Amendment claim because the County's "good cause" permitting requirement impermissibly infringed on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense. View "Peruta v. County of San Diego" on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty in Oregon state court to three counts of compelling prostitution, three counts of rape, three counts of sodomy, and one count of sexual abuse. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's determination that he failed to demonstrate actual innocence of the compelling prostitution counts under Schlup v. Delo. The court concluded that petitioner was actually innocent of compelling prostitution where he induced his daughter to have sex with him, not a third party, in exchange for money and cigarettes. The court held that his untimeliness as to these counts was excused. However, petitioner failed to demonstrate actual innocence under Schlup with respect to the other counts on which he was convicted and his petition was therefore untimely as to those counts. Accordingly, the court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. View "Vosgien v. Kilmer" on Justia Law

Retired Employees and their spouses filed suit against the County, alleging that the Retired Employees have an implied vested right to the pooling of their health care premiums with those of current employees ("pooled premiums"). The court affirmed the district court's order granting the County's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Retired Employees failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact where they did not show any link to Retired Employees' claim of an implied right to an ongoing pool premium; a practice or policy extended over a period of time did not translate into an implied contract without clear legislative intent to create that right - and intent that Retired Employees has not demonstrated in this case; Retired Employees' assertions that its involvement in negotiations with the County revealed an implied contract right to the pooled premium also lacked evidentiary support; and the nature of Retired Employees' evidence underscored the absence of any definitive intent or commitment on the part of the County to provide for the pooled premium. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of the County's motion for summary judgment. View "REAOC v. County of Orange" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and three counts of health care fraud. On appeal, defendants challenged their sentences. The court held that, in health care fraud cases, the amount billed to an insurer shall constitute prima facie evidence of intended loss for sentencing purposes. If not rebutted, this evidence shall constitute sufficient evidence to establish the intended loss by a preponderance of the evidence. However, the parties may introduce additional evidence to support arguments that the amount billed overestimated or understated the defendant's intent. In this instance, the court vacated defendants' sentences on the issue of intended loss because the record left the court uncertain as to what the district court understood the law to be with respect to calculating intended loss for sentencing purposes and there was evidence suggesting that defendants may have been aware that Medicare only payed a fixed amount. When viewed in conjunction with the evidence that defendants were the only two named physicians on the clinic's sign, the documents were sufficient to support the district court's finding that Defendant Popov's bills to Medicare were foreseeable to Defendant Prakash. The court vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Popov" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release by illegally reentering the country after he had been deported. The court held that the provisions in Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal procedure pertaining to initial appearances were inapplicable when a defendant was in custody on underlying criminal charges at the time the revocation proceedings were initiated. Therefore, the magistrate judge did not err in failing to inform defendant of the allegations against him at the initial proceeding. The court also concluded that defendant was provided proper notice of the alleged violations of his supervised release. Finally, defendant's revocation sentence of 21 months was reasonable and defendant was not entitled to the protections of Boykin v. Alabama. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Vasquez-Perez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for receipt of material involving the sexual exploitation of minors. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that his redacted confession was not misleading to the jury and, therefore, that the Rule of Completeness did not require admission of the full statement into evidence; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to instruct the jury on possession; the court joined its sister circuits in holding that it did not matter, for purposes of the sentencing enhancement, whether someone else actually downloaded a file from the defendant's computer; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it applied a two-level distribution enhancement in calculating defendant's sentence; and the district court did not misread the Sentencing Guidelines, which explicitly authorized a distribution enhancement for defendants convicted of receiving, transporting, shipping, soliciting, or advertising material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Vallejos" on Justia Law