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

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss an indictment against him for violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9), which prohibits persons convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from possessing firearms for life. Applying United States v. Brailey, the court concluded that defendant's domestic violence conviction did not divest him of "core" civil rights and he could not qualify for the civil rights restored exception to section 922(g)(9). The court rejected defendant's argument that the civil rights restored exception violated the Equal Protection Clause for the same reasons the court articulated in United States v. Hancock. Like the First, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits, the court applied intermediate scrutiny to section 922(g)(9) and held that it was constitutional on its face and as applied to defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Chovan" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for unlawfully dealing in firearms, and making false statements to customs officials to gain entry into the United States. The court concluded that defendant was not entitled to his proposed jury instructions, which required the government to prove that defendant was not acting as an authorized agent of a federal firearms licensee; the evidence was sufficient to prove that he engaged in the business of dealing firearms; in regards to the false statements convictions, the government presented sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of materiality; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. King" on Justia Law

Petitioner, the mother of twin girls, filed an application under the Hague Convention on International Aspects of Child Abduction, 19 I.L.M. 1501, after the girls' father, a resident of the United States, did not return them to Mexico. The district court held that the parties abandoned Mexico as the children's habitual state of residence when their parents decided they should, for an indefinite period, spend the majority of their time in the United States. The court concluded that the district court judge did not err in deciding that the parents shared a settled intention to abandon Mexico- they had immediate plans to avail the twins of government assistance in the United States as well as longer-term plans to educate the girls in the United States. The father could prevail by showing that he and the girls' mother shared a settled intention to abandon Mexico as the twins' sole habitual residence, that there was an actual change in geography, and that an appreciable period of time had passed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Valenzuela v. Michel" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, farmworkers who are Mexican citizens, filed suit against Peri & Sons, a Nevada corporation that produces, harvests, and packages onions. Plaintiffs alleged that the corporation violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. Deferring to the DOL's interpretation, the court concluded that the district court erred in ruling that the corporation was not required to reimburse its employees during the first week of work for inbound travel and immigration expenses to the extent that such expenses lowered their compensation below the minimum wage. The court further concluded, inter alia, that the district court erred in concluding that the farmworkers had not pled their breach of contract claims with sufficient specificity where such allegations were sufficient to give the corporation fair notice and to make plaintiffs' breach of contract claims plausible. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of the farmworkers' FLSA claims to the extent that they accrued within three years of filing; reversed its dismissal of their breach of contract claims; affirmed the dismissal of their claims under Nevada Revised Statutes 608.140; and reversed the dismissal of their other statutory and constitutional claims to the extent they accrued within two years of filing. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Rivera v. Peri & Sons Farms, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner was convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, child molestation, and sexual abuse. After petitioner's conviction, his trial lawyer learned that the victim had recanted her allegations and counsel then filed a motion to vacate. Because petitioner himself, as well as his two prior counsel were aware of the recantation, the trial judge concluded that the testimony at issue was not newly discovered evidence. The court concluded that the state courts erred by determining that counsel's performance did not prejudice petitioner where counsel's failure to read petitioner's client file was not excused by the failure of the client to inform counsel of what was in the file. Further, counsel's abdication of his duty to investigate was deficient performance under Strickland v. Washington. Here, the deficient performance was prejudicial where the recantations were not merely cumulative, and proper disclosure to the jury could have tipped the scales in petitioner's favor. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Vega v. Ryan" on Justia Law

Defendant, a livestock buyer and cattle rancher, was convicted of false statements to a bank, bank fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, bankruptcy scheme to defraud, and aggravated identity theft. Defendant's convictions stemmed from his involvement in a scheme to secure loans with cattle he did not own and promises to use these loans for profitable business enterprises. The court overturned the convictions of false statements to a bank and aggravated identity theft, affirming defendant's convictions on the remaining counts. In this second appeal, the court held that defendant was not entitled to the presumption of vindictiveness because the district court did not impose a more severe sentence on remand; defendant failed to show actual vindictiveness on the part of the district court; defendant failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in finding over $5 million in relevant conduct losses; defendant failed to show that his fraud scheme was not sufficiently complex to warrant a sophisticated means enhancement; and defendant has not met his burden of showing that the trial court's certification of the transcripts was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's resentencing of defendant. View "United States v. Horob" on Justia Law

This case involved EPA's conditional registration of two pesticides, AGS-20 and AGS-20 U, that HeiQ Materials sought to apply to manufactured textiles. NRDC petitioned the court to vacate EPA's decision to conditionally register the pesticides. The court held that NRDC had Article III standing; EPA's decision not to use the body weight and other characteristics of infants in determining whether the pesticides placed consumers at risk, and instead using the characteristics of a three-year-old toddler, was supported by substantial evidence; and EPA's decision not to consider additional sources of exposure to nanosilver other than the pesticides in concluding that the product would not have unreasonable adverse effects on consumers was supported by substantial evidence. The court vacated EPA's decision insofar as it concluded that there was no risk concern requiring mitigation for short- and intermediate-term aggregate oral and dermal exposure to textiles that were surface coated with the pesticide. Accordingly, the court granted in part and denied in part NRDC's petition for review. View "NRDC v. EPA" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from Seven Arts's attempts to establish ownership of copyrights in several motion pictures: "Rules of Engagement," "An American Rhapsody," and "Who is Cletis Tout?" Seven Arts filed suit against Paramount and Content Media for copyright infringement, a declaration of ownership rights, and an accounting, seeking a declaration that neither Content Media, nor its predecessors-in-interest, CanWest, was the owner or grantee of rights to the films. The action was filed over three years after Paramount plainly and expressly repudiated Seven Arts's copyright ownership by choosing to continue paying royalties to CanWest and Content Media, rather than to Seven Arts's predecessors. The court joined its sister circuits in holding that an untimely ownership claim will bar a claim for copyright infringement where the gravaman of the dispute was ownership, at least where, as here, the parties were in a close relationship. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, concluding that the district court properly dismissed the suit because it was apparent from the complaint that Paramount clearly and expressly repudiated Seven Arts's ownership of the copyrights more than three years before Seven Arts brought suit. View "Seven Arts v. Content Media" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a married couple from Pakistan, sought review of the BIA's dismissal of their appeal from a final order of removal under section 237(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(B), because they remained in the United States for longer than permitted. The order also held that the wife was removeable for misrepresenting a material fact, and declared that the wife had filed a frivolous asylum application. Where, as here, the sole witness refused to answer questions, DHS could not satisfy its burden in the absence of any substantive evidence based solely upon the adverse inference drawn from silence. Therefore, the court concluded that DHS did not meet its burden of establishing the grounds for termination of asylum by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, the court did not reach the merits of petitioners' remaining arguments. The court granted the petition for review. View "Urooj v. Holder" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from an action to abate gang activity under California's general public nuisance statutes. The Orange County District Attorney's Office (OCDA), on behalf of the state, filed a public nuisance action against the Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang (OVC). OCDA subsequently obtained a default judgment, including a permanent injunction (the Order) against OVC and others. Plaintiffs, individuals of whom OCDA and the Orange Police Department (OPD) served the Order and Notice, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that OCDA and OPD's "dismiss-and-serve strategy" violated the procedural due process clauses of the U.S. and California constitutions. The court concluded that the district court properly declined to abstain under Younger v. Harris; plaintiffs' suit was not a forbidden de facto appeal barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to abstain from granting relief under general principles of comity and federalism; and the court evaluated the district court's discretionary decision to grant relief under the Colorado River doctrine rather than under Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of Am. The court reversed the district court's judgment against Rackauckas on plaintiffs' second claim for relief in light of Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Alderman. Further, the court concluded, inter alia, that the Order profoundly implicated liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause; the district court correctly determined that the Mathews v. Eldridge factors "weigh clearly in favor" of the conclusion that defendants violated plaintiffs' procedural due process rights by failing to provide any form of hearing before subjecting them to the Order; and, therefore, the court affirmed the district court's issuance of declaratory and injunctive relief in plaintiffs' favor. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Vasquez v. Rackauckas" on Justia Law