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

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to investment fraud. The district court ordered defendant to pay restitution pursuant to the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3663A. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in including a certain sum in defendant's restitution order where intervening events made defendant's connection to another investor's losses in the scheme at issue simply "too attenuated" to impose liability on defendant for the investor's victims' losses. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence with regard to this amount of restitution and remanded for the limited purpose of entering an amended restitution order. The court concluded, however, that the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant failed to establish that he played a minor role in the offense and therefore was not eligible for a two-level reduction in the base offense level. Accordingly, the court affirmed as to this issue. View "United States v. Swor" on Justia Law

In two separate cases, the government charged defendant with being an alien in the United States after deportation, as well as misrepresenting his identity and citizenship to fraudulently obtain supplemental social security benefits, acquire food stamps, and make a claim of citizenship, and apply for a passport. Defendant was convicted of all charges and his primary defense to all the charges was that he was a citizen of the United States. The court concluded that the district court erred in invoking an inherent "gate-keeping" authority to exclude defendant's birth certificate pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a) without relying on some substantive basis outside of Rule 104(a); the district court erred by concluding that no reasonable juror could determine that the birth certificate was "substantively genuine," and by excluding the birth certificate pursuant to Rule 403 without first assessing its probative value when taken as a true record of defendant's birth; and the district court's exclusion of the central piece of evidence for defendant's main defense to a critical element of all the charges in the two cases was violation of defendant's Fifth Amendment right to present a defense. Because the district court's error was not harmless, the court vacated all of the convictions and remanded for a retrial. View "United States v. Evans, Sr." on Justia Law

Defendant removed plaintiff's putative class action to federal court, contending that there was federal jurisdiction over the action under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4, and 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2). Plaintiff alleged that the amount in controversy did not exceed $5 million and waived any claim by the class in excess of the amount. The district court granted plaintiff's motion to remand based on plaintiff's waiver. The court held that a lead plaintiff of a putative class could not reduce the amount in controversy on behalf of absent class members, so there was no justification for assigning to the allegation weight so significant that it affected a defendant's right to a federal forum under section 1332(d)(2). The court also held that the legal certainty standard in Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank National Association had been effectively overruled and that the proper burden of proof imposed upon a defendant to establish the amount in controversy was the preponderance of the evidence standard pursuant to Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded to the district court to apply the preponderance standard to the amount-in-controversy evidence. View " Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Services LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of sixteen counts of making a false claim for farm benefits in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1014 and subsequently appealed the district court's loss calculation. The court concluded that the record revealed sufficient evidence that defendant was not entitled to any portion of the indemnity payments as an "intended beneficiary" under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(F)(ii), and the district court did not err in including in the loss calculation the full indemnity amount for all claims from the properties at issue; the district court did not err by including the total amount of the indemnities in the loss calculation; and the district court did not err by including in the loss calculation two other categories of expenses: A&O expenses - fees that the government pays to the insurance company for selling and servicing the policy - and premium subsidies. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Torlai, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant repeatedly violated his terms of supervised release after a child pornography conviction and the district court revoked his supervised release. Opper v. United States held that, in criminal proseuctions, where guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court required a conviction to rest on more than the uncorroborated confession of the defendant. The court concluded that the Opper rule did not apply to supervised release revocation proceedings and the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking defendant's supervised release based on defendant's confession that he had violated restrictions on contact with minors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Hilger" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an atheist, filed suit seeking damages and injunctive relief after he was forced as a condition of parole to participate in a residential drug treatment program that required him to acknowledge a higher power. The court held that the district judge erred in denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial based on the jury's failure to award damages; in instructing the jury to determine whether liability should have been apportioned among the multiple defendants in this case; and in dismissing certain other of plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Hazle, Jr. v. Crofoot, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that Congress has no power to regulate the activities contemplated by the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, Mont. Code Ann. 30-20-104, and injunctive relief preventing the federal government from bringing civil or criminal actions under federal firearms law against Montana citizens acting in compliance with the Act. The court concluded that Plaintiff Gary Marbut alleged economic injury sufficient for standing. On the merits, Congress could have rationally concluded that the manufacture of unlicensed firearms, even if initially sold only within the State of Montana, would in the aggregate substantially affect the interstate market for firearms. Under Gonzales v. Raich and United States v. Stewart, that was enough to place the rifle Marbut wished to manufacture and sell within reach of the long arm of federal law. Because the Act purported to dictate to the contrary, it was necessarily preempted and invalid. Accordingly, the court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. View "Mont. Shooting Sports Ass'n v. Holder" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from charges that defendant falsified a 2000 charitable organization tax return in order to conceal his support of an independence movement in Chechnya. The case involved significant amounts of classified materials and multiple in camera, ex parte reviews as well as classified proceedings. The court concluded, inter alia, that the government violated its obligations under Brady v. Maryland by withholding significant impeachment evidence relevant to a central government witness; the district court erred in approving an inadequate substitution for classified material that was relevant and helpful to the defense; and the search that the government conducted of defendant's computer hard drives went beyond the explicit limitations of the warrant and the court remanded to the district court to consider the appropriate scope of items seized and whether the exclusionary rule should apply. Considering the errors both individually as well as cumulatively in light of the evidence as a whole, the court concluded that the errors were prejudicial and reversed and remanded for a new trial. The court filed concurrently a classified opinion with respect to the substitution. View "United States v. Sedaghaty" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of fifteen counts of wire fraud, eleven counts of money laundering, and three counts of tax evasion. At issue on appeal was whether the district court correctly applied U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(9)(A) because his offense involved "a misrepresentation that the defendant was acting on behalf of a charitable...organization." The court concluded that, under the reasoning of United States v. Treadwell, defendant's offense fits easily within the ambit of charitable enhancement even though his scheme involved the sham sale of shares in a for-profit company; the applicability of his sentencing enhancement did not change because he purported to act in the interest of a charitable organization but not as its agent or representative; and it was not significant that defendant's investor's could have been motivated, in part, by a desire to profit personally. By presenting the investment opportunity as his means of donating to the charitable organization, defendant misrepresented that he was acting "to obtain a benefit on behalf of" the organization. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the enhancement and the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Cohen" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Belarus, petitioned for review of an order of the BIA affirming an IJ's determination that she was not entitled to asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner has been deaf since infancy and claimed that her condition subjected her to persecution in Belarus. Petitioner also claimed that she suffered persecution on account of her and her family's religion (Seventh Day Adventists). The court concluded that petitioner has made a showing of past persecution on the basis of religion and that the government failed to rebut this presumption. Accordingly, petitioner was eligible for asylum on this claim. The court granted the petition for review and remanded for further proceedings. View "Rusak v. Holder" on Justia Law