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

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a sentencing enhancement based on defendant's prior Arizona conviction for attempted armed robbery, which the court treated as a "crime of violence" under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual. The panel reexamined its previous decision in United States v. Taylor, 529 F.3d 1232 (9th Cir. 2008), that Arizona attempted armed robbery should be considered a crime of violence under the relevant Guidelines provision, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010), which construed a similarly worded crime-of-violence provision in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The panel held that, although Johnson did not require the panel to depart from some of its analysis in Taylor, Arizona attempted armed robbery nonetheless qualifies as a crime of violence for reasons other than those relied upon in Taylor. The panel held that Arizona robbery (and thus armed robbery) was a categorical match to generic robbery, and that Arizona attempt was equivalent to generic attempt, so defendant's conviction did constitute a crime of violence for purposes of USSG 4B1.2. View "United States v. Sanchez Molinar" on Justia Law

The Ninth Panel affirmed defendant's conviction for knowingly discharging dredged or fill material from a point source into a water of the United States without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251–1388; willfully injuring and committing depredation of property of the United States causing more than $1,000 worth of damage to the property; and knowingly discharging dredged or fill material from a point source into a water of the United States on private property without a permit. Defendant's convictions stemmed from the excavation and construction of a series of ponds on National Forest System Lands. The panel held that Northern California River Watch v. City of Healdsburg, 496 F.3d 993 (2007), remains valid and binding precedent. In Healdsburg, jurisdiction was determined to exist under the "significant nexus" test set forth in Justice Kennedy's concurrence in Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006). The panel also held that the statutory term "waters of the United States" was not unconstitutionally vague and defendant had fair warning of the term; defendant's argument that the district court should have granted his motion to acquit after the jury deadlocked at his first trial was foreclosed; and the panel rejected defendant's remaining arguments. View "United States v. Robertson" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming an IJ's adverse credibility determination and denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner argued that he was persecuted in India because of his support of one of the country's opposition political parties. The panel held that the IJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence; the IJ's demeanor findings were sufficiently specific, and the Board and IJ provided specific and cogent reasons for why inaccuracies in petitioner's documentary evidence, and inconsistencies between his statements and other evidence of record, undermined his credibility; petitioner could not satisfy his burden of proving he was eligible for asylum and withholding of removal; and the Board's determination that petition was not entitled to protection under the CAT was supported by substantial evidence. View "Manes v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, rejecting defendant's challenges to the denial of two motions to suppress evidence, admission of a witness' testimony, and the denial of defendant's Daubert motion. However, the panel vacated the sentence based on the government's cross-appeal and remanded for resentencing with instructions that a conviction under CPC 211(a) qualifies as a crime of violence, warranting a base offense level of 24 under USSG 2K2.1(a)(2). In United States v. Barragan, 871 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2017), the panel held unequivocally that a prior California robbery conviction is categorically a "crime of violence" for purposes of the career offender sentencing provision. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Under New Jersey's traditional res judicata doctrine, a claim asserting breach of a contractual guarantee of a third party's debt does not preclude later alter ego and successor liability claims to collect the debt directly from entities related to the debtor. Further, although New Jersey's procedural joinder rules may require such claims to be joined in a single action, New Jersey law declines to impose these rules on other courts. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of most of Daewoo's claims as barred by a prior judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In this case, the district court failed to apply New Jersey law correctly and erred in ruling that the claims in the present action were precluded under New Jersey law. View "Daewoo Electronics America v. Opta Corp." on Justia Law

Under Gibbs v. Legrand, post-discovery delay does not preclude equitable tolling but is still relevant to assessing a party's "overall diligence." The Ninth Circuit affirmed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's decision reversing the bankruptcy court's dismissal as time-barred of a bankruptcy estate's claims seeking avoidance of fraudulent transfers and affirming the bankruptcy court's dismissal of other claims based on transfers not made by debtor. The panel held that neither court correctly applied the law on equitable tolling. In this case, the estate's overall diligence, combined with the extraordinary circumstances preventing earlier discovery of the subject transfers, warranted equitable tolling. View "Milby v. Templeton" on Justia Law

An inmate serving a federal sentence remains under "the custody of the Attorney General" as per 18 U.S.C. 751(a) when he is held at a state-run institution pursuant to the writ. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a pre-plea motion to dismiss an indictment where defendant pleaded guilty to attempted escape. The panel held that defendant's guilty plea did not preclude them from considering the merits of his appeal; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss on the ground that he was in federal custody as a matter of law pursuant to section 751(a); and the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss on prosecutorial vindictiveness grounds. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a securities fraud action brought against Yelp and others. Plaintiffs argued that the district court erred by holding that they did not adequately plead falsity, materiality, loss causation, and scienter. The panel held that the disclosure of consumer complaints, without more, in the circumstances of this case did not form a sufficient basis for a viable loss causation theory. Furthermore, allegations of suspicious insider sales of stock without allegations of historical trading data did not create a strong inference of scienter. Finally, the panel affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint with prejudice because amendment of the complaint as to loss causation would be futile under current precedent. View "Curry v. Yelp, Inc." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of an action against a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. The panel remanded for further proceedings, holding that federal law preempts a private party's use of state execution procedures to acquire and destroy a debtor's FDCPA claims against it. The panel explained that such a procedure frustrates the Act's purpose. View "Arellano v. Clark County Collection Service" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision that petitioner's felony hit and run conviction under California Vehicle Code 20001(a) was a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT), rendering him ineligible for cancellation of removal. In this case, petitioner admitted in his plea agreement that he was involved in a car accident that led to injury. The panel applied the modified categorical approach and held that a felony conviction for traditional hit and run causing injury qualifies as a CIMT under current controlling precedent. View "Conejo-Bravo v. Sessions" on Justia Law