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

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for felony and misdemeanor assault. Defendant challenged his conviction on due-process grounds, claiming his constitutional rights were violated where the prosecution "threatened" one of its own witnesses with possible perjury charges, allegedly causing the witness to change her previous exculpatory trial testimony to be inculpatory. The court rejected the due-process challenge because defendant failed to meet his evidentiary burden. The court also held that defendant's claim of sentencing error failed because it relied on a misunderstanding of the court's opinion in United States v. Waknine. View "United States v. Juan" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged the Forest Service's decision adopting the modified Idaho Roadless Rule. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants and adopted the district court's comprehensive judgment in Appeal No. 11-35269. The district court found that the Forest Service did not violate the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., in preparing the Biological Opinion and that the Forest Service did not violate the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., in relying on the Biological Opinion or in preparing the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision approving the Rule. Consequently, cross appeals were dismissed as moot. View "Jayne, et al v. Sherman, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action claiming that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs related to dental care. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's judgment as a matter of law in favor of Dr. Dillard and Dr. Fitter and judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Dr. Brooks. At issue was whether the district court erred when it instructed the jury on the question of whether Dr. Brooks could be held responsible for failing to provide services when he lacked resources. The court held that the principle contained in the instructions given in this case was a proper one where the instruction took into account the duties, discretion, and means available. The instruction, in effect, stated that if Dr. Brooks could not "render or cause to be rendered" the needed services because of a lack of resources that he could not cure, he also could not individually be liable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Peralta v. Dillard, et al" on Justia Law

Defendants, four Chinese nationals, appealed their convictions and sentences for federal crimes that they committed as part of a scheme to steal funds from the Bank of China, where two of the defendants were high-level employees. Defendants also appealed their convictions related to their efforts to escape prosecution and to retain the proceeds by illegal transfers of funds and by immigration fraud. The court held that defendants' count one convictions were not the result of an improper extraterritorial application of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962(d), conspiracy statute because defendants' criminal enterprise involved both bank fraud and immigration fraud centered on stealing money from the Bank of China and traveling freely with that stolen money in the United States. The evidence was sufficient to support convictions on money laundering conspiracy and conspiracy to transport stolen money. The court remanded for resentencing because the district court improperly relied on defendants' foreign conduct to meet the requirements of U.S.S.G. 2S1(a)(1)(A) resulting in procedural error, improperly applied a one-level enhancement based on foreign conduct, and failed to provide an adequate legal and factual basis for the restitution order. View "United States v. Xu" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and was sentenced to 77 months' imprisonment. After the Sentencing Commission amended the crack-cocaine guidelines, the district court granted a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court held that defendant satisfied the first requirement for relief under section 3582(c). The court held, however, that U.S.S.G. 1B1.10(a)(1) mandated that the Career Offender guidelines were defendant's "applicable guidelines"; thus, the district court did not have jurisdiction either to hear defendant's section 3582(c) motion or to act sua sponte. The court also held that Freeman v. United States did not hold that a defendant's agreed sentencing range was necessarily the same as his applicable sentencing range and, even if it did, Freeman would have been abrogated by Amendment 759's clarification of the definition of "applicable guidelines." Under that definition, defendant's applicable guidelines were the Career Offender guidelines. Thus, defendant was not entitled to a reduction in sentence under section 3582. Accordingly, the district court's order reducing defendant's sentence was reversed and the case remanded with instructions to reinstate defendant's original sentence as set forth in his plea agreement. View "United States v. Pleasant" on Justia Law

Defendant, the former CEO of Millennium Pacific Icon Group, was convicted of conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Defendant failed to inform contractors that he hired to scrape and repair ceilings in a condominium building that the ceilings contained asbestos. The court held that the district court did not err in giving or formulating the deliberate ignorance instruction. The court also held that the district court's application of the nine-level sentencing enhancement for an offense resulting in a substantial likelihood of death or serious bodily injury was supported by clear and convincing evidence. Finally, the district court did not clearly err in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant was an organizer or leader. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Yi" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs purchased variable universal life insurance policies from defendant. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a class action suit against defendant under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA), 15 U.S.C. 78bb(f)(1), for levying excessive cost of insurance charges. The court concluded that claims of breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing were not precluded by SLUSA, even if such claims related to the purchase or sale of a covered security. The court reversed the district court's dismissal of the two contract claims, on the condition that plaintiffs amend their complaint to remove any reference to deliberate concealment or fraudulent omission. The court affirmed the dismissal of the class claim for unfair competition in violation of California law. View "Freeman Investments, L.P., et al v. Pacific Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs alleged that the shares they purchased in Century Aluminum Company were issued under a materially false and misleading prospectus supplement which was treated as part of the company's registration statement for purposes of section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77k. The court concluded that plaintiffs' failure to plead the traceability of their shares meant that they lacked statutory standing under section 11, but failure to allege statutory standing resulted in failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted, not the absence of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court should therefore have addressed the company's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), not Rule 12(b)(1). Notwithstanding this error, the court affirmed the dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). View "Petzschke, et al v. Century Aluminum Co., et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Afghanistan, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for review of a determination by the USCIS that his felony conviction of assault with intent to commit rape rendered him ineligible to become naturalized as a United States citizen. The court held that the district court's grant of summary judgment to the USCIS as a matter of law was justified. Contrary to petitioner's claims, he had not been deprived of due process of law or been the victim of the improper retroactive application of a statute. Although he was barred from naturalization as a citizen, his status as a legal permanent resident remained in full force. View "Alocozy v. USCIS, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of distributing crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841. At issue was whether the district court erred by sentencing defendant as a career offender under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1 based on his two prior convictions under California Health and Safety Code 11352(a). The court held that the government had not satisfied its burden of showing that one of these two convictions qualified as a predicate offense and remanded for the district court to reconsider defendant's offender status. View "United States v. Lee" on Justia Law