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

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated identity theft and aiding and abetting, and one count of possessing a false identification document with the intent to defraud the United States. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's forfeiture order in the amount of $4,128,554.00. The court held that when a conviction for aggravated identity theft is premised on a proven or admitted violation of a predicate offense that is enumerated in the civil forfeiture statute, then forfeiture is authorized. The court concluded that the district court had statutory authority to enter a criminal forfeiture order because of defendant's conviction of aggravated identity theft, with a bank fraud predicate offense; defendant waived his Eighth Amendment claim; defendant waived his right to appeal the forfeiture order on notice grounds; and defendant waived his claim that the district court erred by not requiring the government to prove the amount of proceeds. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Pollard" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico and a gay man, challenged the BIA's decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). A divided panel of this court, relied primarily on the court's decision in Castro-Martinez v. Holder, which interpreted the "unable or unwilling to control" standard as requiring proof that the police are unable or unwilling to control the sexual abuse of children generally. The panel majority adopted the IJ's conclusion that it was unlikely that the Mexican government would take no action to control the "abuse of children." The court granted rehearing en banc and held that the evidence petitioner adduced before the agency satisfied the court's longstanding evidentiary standards for establishing past persecution. In this case, petitioner provided credible written and oral testimony that reporting was futile and potentially dangerous, that other young gay men had reported their abuse to the Mexican police to no avail, and country reports and news articles documenting official and private persecution of individuals on account of their sexual orientation. Therefore, the court concluded that petitioner suffered past persecution that the Mexican government was unable or unwilling to control. The court overruled Castro-Martinez to the extent it might suggest otherwise and remanded the petition to the BIA for further proceedings. View "Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal, the water agencies challenged the district court's grant of partial summary judgment for the Tribe and the United States. The judgment declared that the United States impliedly reserved appurtenant water sources, including groundwater, when it created the Tribe's reservation in California's arid Coachella Valley. The court concluded that in the Winters v. United States doctrine, federal reserved water rights are directly applicable to Indian reservations and other federal enclaves, encompassing water rights in navigable and nonnavigable streams; the Winters doctrine does not distinguish between surface water and groundwater; rather, its limits derive only from the government's intent in withdrawing land for a public purpose and the location of the water in relation to the reservation created; because the United States intended to reserve water when it established a home for the Tribe, the court held that the district court did not err in determining that the government reserved appurtenant water sources—including groundwater—when it created the Tribe's reservation in the Coachella Valley; and the creation of the Agua Caliente Reservation carried with it an implied right to use water from the Coachella Valley aquifer. The court held that state water rights were preempted by federal reserved rights; held that the fact that the Tribe did not historically access groundwater does not destroy its right to groundwater now; and held that state water entitlements do not affect the court's analysis with respect to the creation of the Tribe's federally reserved water right. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water District" on Justia Law

After defendant was convicted of distributing methamphetamine, the district court imposed a special condition of supervised release prohibiting him from knowingly possessing, distributing, inhaling, or ingesting any synthetic cannabinoid. On appeal, defendant argued that this synthetic marijuana condition was unconstitutionally vague. The court concluded that the district court acted well within its discretion by imposing a special condition specifically targeting the use of synthetic marijuana; the language of the condition was sufficiently precise to avoid the vagueness concerns the court identified in United States v. Aquino; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the condition simply because it prohibits conduct also covered by one of the standard conditions prohibiting him from committing any federal, state, or local offense. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Sims" on Justia Law

DWA, a political subdivision of the State of California, charges businesses and residences in Riverside County a variety of fees and taxes in order to recoup its costs and expenses. Parties subject to DWA's charges include non-Indians who lease lands from the Tribe within the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation. DWA filed suit against the Department, challenging Interior's promulgation of 25 C.F.R. 162.017. Section 162.017 addresses the taxes applied to approved leases on Indian land to third parties. The court agreed with Interior and concluded that the regulation does not purport to change existing law, and therefore it does not operate to preempt DWA's charges. Consequently, DWA lacks standing to challenge the regulation. Finally, the court lacked jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment that DWA's charges would survive a preemption challenge under White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker where the dispute between DWA and Interior was over. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Desert Water Agency v. Department of the Interior" on Justia Law

The bankruptcy trustee sought to recover for the bankruptcy estate a $190,595.50 loan payment debtor Tenderloin made to BOTW within ninety days of the filing of Tenderloin's chapter 7 bankruptcy. The "greater amount test" in 11 U.S.C. 547(b)(5) requires that the trustee demonstrate that by virtue of that payment BOTW received more than it otherwise would have in a hypothetical chapter 7 liquidation where the challenged transfer had not been made. The district court granted summary judgment for BOTW and found that the trustee could not satisfy section 547(b)(5) because BOTW had a right of setoff, and Tenderloin's account contained at least $190,595.50 on the petition date. The trustee asserted that in the hypothetical liquidation, the trustee would avoid a $526,402.05 deposit, leaving less than $190,595.50 in Tenderloin's account, even allowing for BOTW's right of setoff. The court concluded that courts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical chapter 7 liquidation when such an inquiry was factually warranted, was supported by appropriate evidence, and the action would not contravene an independent statutory provision. In this case, the court was satisfied that the $526,402.05 deposit would constitute an avoidable preference in the hypothetical liquidation at issue here. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Schoenmann v. Bank of the West" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging First and Sixth Amendment claims arising from jail employees opening legal mail outside plaintiff's presence. The district court dismissed the claims. The court clarified that, under Nordstrom v. Ryan, prisoners have a Sixth Amendment right to be present when legal mail related to a criminal matter is inspected; plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for improper opening of his incoming legal mail on November 9, 2012 and March 12, 2013; the remaining counts were properly dismissed because plaintiff failed to allege that the mail was properly marked as legal mail; and the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's First Amendment claim in a concurrently filed opinion, Hayes v. Idaho Correctional Center. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Mangiaracina v. Penzone" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging four instances of prison employees delivering legal mail addressed to him that had been opened before delivery, and that prison and prison officials maintained a policy or custom of ignoring the improper handling of legal mail. The district court dismissed the complaint at the pre-screening stage pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A. The court recognized that prisoners have a protected First Amendment interest in having properly marked legal mail opened only in their presence; a plaintiff need not allege a longstanding practice of violating his First Amendment rights in order to state a claim for relief on a direct liability theory; a plaintiff need not show any actual injury beyond the free speech violation itself to state a constitutional claim; the district court properly dismissed two counts of alleged improper mail opening; the other two instances, however, do state a First Amendment claim; the district court erred in dismissing these two claims at the pre-screening stage; on remand, Defendant Burke may offer a legitimate penological reason for opening plaintiff's legal mail at either summary judgment or trial; and plaintiff waived any challenge to the dismissal of his policy-based claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Hayes v. Idaho Correctional Center" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for attempted illegal reentry and noted that the district court's instruction at trial failed to properly inform the jury of the essential elements of the offense. Petitioner frequently earned money washing car windows at the Mariposa port of entry into the United States. Petitioner was arrested by border patrol agents one day when he was washing windows. The court concluded that the lack of instruction to the jury that petitioner had to have a conscious desire to reenter the United States free from official restraint to be found guilty of the crime of attempted illegal reentry was plain error. In this case, if properly instructed on the official restraint doctrine, no rational jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner was free from official restraint in the pre-inspection area, or that he intended to be simply by entering that area. Likewise, there was insufficient evidence in the record to support petitioner's guilt on the theory that he intended to go beyond the pre-inspection area so as to be free to go at large and at will within the United States. Accordingly, the court vacated the conviction and remanded for a judgment of acquittal View "United States v. Vazquez-Hernandez" on Justia Law

Petitioner, found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol and possession of a billy club, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus. Petitioner claimed that the state trial court's failure to suppress his statements regarding the billy club after petitioner stated "I want my attorney" violated his Fifth Amendment rights under the principles set forth in Edwards v. Arizona. Petitioner contended that he was under arrest at the time the agent asked him to take a chemical test and was thus in custody at the time he unambiguously invoked his right to counsel. The court concluded that the Supreme Court has not addressed the question whether a defendant's request for counsel in response to a request to submit to a chemical test constitutes an invocation of his Miranda rights for purposes of any future custodial interrogations. Therefore, the court could not say that the state court's ruling was objectively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Robertson v. Pichon" on Justia Law