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

Petitioner, sentenced to 254 years of imprisonment for nonhomicide crimes he committed when he was sixteen years old, petitioned for review of the district court's denial of his petition for federal habeas corpus relief. In Graham v. Florida, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution prohibits States from sentencing a juvenile offender to life in prison without parole for a nonhomicide crime. The court concluded that Graham established a new rule of law that was retroactively applicable on collateral review under Teague v. Lane. Further, the state court's decision was contrary to clearly established Federal law set forth in Graham where defendant's sentence was materially indistinguishable from the sentence in Graham and where defendant's nonhomicide crimes were materially indistinguishable from the nonhomicide crimes in Graham. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to grant defendant's petition. View "Moore v. Biter" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Green Day and others, alleging violations of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq., because Green Day used plaintiff's illustration, "Scream Icon," in the video backdrop of its stage show. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Green Day on all claims and the grant of attorney's fees to Green Day under the Copyright Act. The court concluded that Green Day's use of the illustration was fair use under the Copyright Act where the purpose and character of the use was transformative and not overly commercial; the nature of the work included its status as a widely disseminated work of street art; Green Day's use of the work was not excessive in light of its transformative purpose; and Green Day's use did not affect the value of the piece or of plaintiff's artwork in general. In regards to plaintiff's claims under the Lanham Act, the court concluded that plaintiff failed to establish any trademark rights. The court concluded, however, that the district court clearly erred in finding that plaintiff's claims were objectively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment but vacated the award of attorneys fees. View "Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her sentence stemming from her conviction of crimes related to her involvement in the Ichihara drug network. The court concluded that the district court failed to use the Sentencing Guidelines as a starting point for its analysis but, instead, selected the sentence first and then placed defendant in the Guidelines range that would allow the sentence; the district court incorrectly calculated the base offense level because it improperly held that defendant had pled guilty to transporting methamphetamine of a certain purity level; and the district court failed to calculate the revised statutory mandatory minimum sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3553(e) and, therefore, the court could not determine the legality or appropriateness of defendant's 96-month sentence. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. On remand, the court advised the district court to give further consideration at resentencing to defendant's age and the likelihood that she will die in prison. View "United States v. Lee" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of mail fraud and theft by an officer or employee of a gaming establishment on Indian lands. On appeal, defendant challenged his conviction. The court concluded that the location of the gaming establishment was not an element of the offense under 18 U.S.C. 1168(b) and that the indictment adequately alleged mail fraud and theft by an officer or employee of a gaming establishment on Indian lands; there was no error in the jury instructions where the instructions correctly defined "intent to defraud;" and there was no error in the admission of prior acts evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's convictions. View "United States v. Livingston" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction on one count of importation of methamphetamine. The court held that the district court did not err in admitting defendant's post-arrest statement because defendant's statement was voluntary and arguably inconsistent with his trial testimony and because the prosecution used the statement only as impeachment during rebuttal; the admission of a special agent's testimony as an expert on several topics did not violate Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b), Federal Rule of Evidence 403, and the Confrontation Clause and the district court did not commit reversible error in admitting the testimony; and the prosecutor's statement that it was the jury's "duty" to convict defendant did not amount to prosecutorial misconduct. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Gomez" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of eight misdemeanor counts of possession of child pornography and one misdemeanor count of duplicating child pornography, appealed the denial of his federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court concluded that, although the prosecutor erred by arguing that the jury could consider the context in which the images at issue were displayed in determining whether the images were child pornography, the error was harmless. The court rejected defendant's remaining arguments and affirmed the judgment. View "Shoemaker v. Taylor" on Justia Law

KDS petitioned for review from the summary decision of an ALJ in favor of ICE on 225 out of 271 alleged violations of 8 U.S.C. 1324a(b) and the resulting civil penalty. Section 1324a(b) requires employers to verify that their employees are legally authorized to work in the United States. The court held that compliance required that the relevant information from the documents be transcribed onto the I-9 Form, regardless of whether copies of the documents were retained. The court concluded that it was neither arbitrary nor capricious to require that employers actually complete their I-9 Forms; applying Skidmore deference, the court rejected KDS's alternative argument that even if it had not complied with all of its verification and documentation obligations under section 1324a(b), its non-compliance should be treated as compliance under section 1324a(b)(6)(A); and the court found no error in the ALJ's penalty calculations. Accordingly, the court denied KDS's petition for review. View "Ketchikan Drywall Servs. v. ICE, et al." on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals, plaintiffs principally claimed that their school districts have an obligation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., to provide them with a word-for-word transcription service so that they can fully understand the teacher and fellow students without undue strain and consequent stress. The court held that courts evaluating claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400, and Title II must analyze each claim separately under the relevant statutory and regulatory framework. In these cases, the district courts legally erred in granting summary judgment by holding that plaintiff's Title II claim was foreclosed as a matter of law by the failure of her IDEA claim. Accordingly, the court reversed the grants of summary judgment on the ADA claims in both cases and on the Unruh Act, Cal. Civ. Code 51, 52, claim in K.M. v. Tustin, remanding for further proceedings in both cases. View "K. M. v. Tustin Unified Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of six counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition. Petitioner challenged four certified claims and raised six uncertified claims, with respect to which the court granted a certificate of appealability. The court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment with respect to Claim 3 (trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence of mental disorders as a mitigating factor), Claim 4 (trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present a mental state defense), Claim 5 (trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence of petitioner's incompetence and to request competency hearings), and Claim 11 (petitioner was incompetent to stand trial and waived fundamental rights), where petitioner failed to establish that the California Supreme Court's decision denying his claims necessarily involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. In regards to the six additional claims, the court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment on those claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court in all respects. View "Sully v. Ayers, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioners, a married couple from Jordan, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision that extraordinary circumstances did not excuse their untimely applications for asylum. According to petitioners, their delay in filing asylum applications was reasonable because of various barriers they encountered after their lawful status elapsed, including ineffective assistance of counsel and their inability to file asylum applications due to having been served Notices to Appear. The court concluded that, even assuming that petitioners could demonstrate extraordinary circumstances, they did not file their applications within a reasonable period given those circumstances. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Al Ramahi, et al. v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law