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

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, challenging the district court's failure to order production of certain U.S. Border Patrol dispatch tapes. Without listening to the tapes, the district court concluded that defendant's showing of materiality was speculative. The tapes could have been crucial to defendant's ability to assess the reliability of the Border Patrol agent's testimony and to cross-examine him effectively. Moreover, the tapes were clearly relevant to defendant's location and the official restraint defense. Accordingly, the court vacated the conviction and remanded, concluding that the district court erred in excluding potentially exculpatory evidence. View "United States v. Muniz-Jaquez" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants claiming that the BLM's management of grazing within the Breaks Monument violated the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. 1701-1787; Proclamation No. 7398, 3 C.F.R. 7398; and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347. The court held that the BLM reasonably interpreted the Proclamation to not require programmatic changes to grazing management policies and that the Breaks environmental impact statement complied with NEPA. The court held, however, that the environmental assessment for the Woodhawk Allotment violated NEPA by not considering a reasonable range of alternatives that included a no- or reduced-grazing option. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Western Watersheds Project v. Abbey" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of the decision of the BIA denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court reversed the BIA's denial of petitioner's applications for asylum and withholding of removal, and remanded for the BIA to determine whether petitioner had a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a political opinion or whether he was more likely than not to be persecuted on account of a political opinion. The court denied the petition with regards to petitioner's claims for relief under the CAT where substantial evidence supported the BIA's conclusion that petitioner failed to show that he was more likely than not to be tortured if he returned to El Salvador. Accordingly, the court granted and remanded in part and denied in part. View "Regalado-Escobar v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his conviction for making a false statement and obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 1512(c). In this appeal, the court considered defendant's claim that the district court gave an erroneous instruction on section 1512(c). The court rejected defendant's argument that the district court erred by not including the words "evil" and "wicked" in the challenged instruction on the meaning of "corruptly" and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Watter" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, current and former employees of Amgen and AML, participated in two employer-sponsored pension plans, the Amgen Plan and the AML Plan. The Plans were employee stock-ownership plans that qualified as "eligible individual account plans" (EIAPs) under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1107(d)(3)(A). Plaintiffs filed an ERISA class action against Amgen, AML, and others after the value of Amgen common stock fell, alleging that defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA. The court concluded that defendants were not entitled to a presumption of prudence under Quan v. Computer Sciences Corp., that plaintiffs have stated claims under ERISA in Counts II through VI, and that Amgen was a properly named fiduciary under the Amgen Plan. Therefore, the court reversed the decision of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "Harris v. Amgen" on Justia Law

Higher Taste sued the Park district under 42 U.S.C. 1983, requesting a declaration that Resolution 40-05 violated its rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and an injunction barring the resolution's enforcement. The district court granted Higher Taste's motion for a preliminary injunction, expressly ruling that Higher Taste had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. The parties later executed a written settlement agreement. Higher Taste then moved for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988(b), which permitted an award to the "prevailing party" in certain civil rights actions, including those brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court denied the motion. The court reversed and concluded that, because Higher Taste was a prevailing party within the meaning of section 1988, it should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust. On remand, the district court should determine in the first instance whether such special circumstances exist. View "Higher Taste, Inc. v. City of Tacoma" on Justia Law

In his habeas case, petitioner, who was convicted of multiple murders, argued that his lawyer was ineffective in 1982 for failing to request a full-blown competency hearing. The court held that even assuming for the sake of argument that his lawyer should have requested a plenary competency hearing, petitioner nevertheless suffered no prejudice from the lack of a competency hearing because there was no reasonable probability that he would have been found incompetent to plead guilty. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's request for discovery and a hearing on the claim that his counsel was ineffective in 1986 for failing to move to disqualify a judge based on senility. The court concluded that the judge was not impaired in 1986 and if the state supreme court had no cause to question the judge's mental status, neither did counsel. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of petitioner's habeas corpus petition based on ineffective assistance of counsel and affirmed the denial on all other grounds, remanding for the district court to deny the petition. View "Deere v. Cullen" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for four counts of making false statements relating to health care matters. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of making a false statement relating to a health care benefit program for his communication with California officials under 18 U.S.C. 1035(a); the jury heard sufficient evidence that defendant's statements and concealment were addressed to Medicare; there was sufficient evidence that defendant knowingly provided false information to Medicare investigators in the form of circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish both actus reus and mens reus; the jury had sufficient evidence to find that defendant was aware the certified deliveries were not occurring and deliberately avoided learning the truth; the district court did not err in instructing the jury; the probative value of the admission of evidence regarding the scope of the fraud outweighed any prejudice; and because the court determined no plain error occurred, there was no cause to conduct a review under the cumulative error doctrine. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ajoku" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for failing to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 18 U.S.C. 2250. The court held that Congress had authority under the Commerce Clause to compel defendant, a convicted sex offender who traveled interstate, to register under SORNA. The court also held that under the modified categorical approach, defendant's plea to the state charge of sexual abuse rendered him a Tier III sex offender. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Cabrera-Gutierrez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Because the reading of an I-214 Form was "normally attendant to arrest and custody," and the Border Patrol agent made not effort to question defendant or secure a waiver of her rights, the court held that his actions were not the functional equivalent of express questioning such that they were an "interrogation" in violation of Miranda v. Arizona. Further, based on the circumstances, defendant was not subjected to the functional equivalent of interrogation. Because defendant was not subjected to interrogation or its functional equivalent, the court affirmed the district court's motion to suppress her post-arrest statements. View "United States v. Morgan" on Justia Law