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

Defendant was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance and a firearm. Defendant moved to suppress evidence of these crimes that was discovered in the subsequent warrantless search of his car. The government presented its substantive arguments orally at the suppression hearing and in its written response to the magistrate judge's Report, and therefore the court held that those arguments were preserved for appeal. Moreover, because the police had probable cause to suspect that evidence of a crime would be found in defendant's car, which had the potential for mobility and was being used as a licensed motor vehicle, the court held that the government's warrantless search of defendant's car was permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. Therefore, defendant's motion to suppress should not have been granted and the court reversed the judgment. View "United States v. Scott" on Justia Law

The Church appealed a sanction order granting attorneys' fees and costs to appellees. The court held that appellant did not take reasonable steps to avoid imposing an undue burden on appellees, who were non-parties to the underlying case. In reversing the sanctions order, the court held that Rule 45(c)(1) could not properly support a sanction where the cost of complying with the subpoena was minimal and there was no showing that the subpoena was facially defective or issued in bad faith. View "Mount Hope Church, et al v. Bash Back!" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession and transportation of child pornography. The court affirmed the district court's imposition of a sentencing enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice in a case in which defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court wrote that defendant's conduct was obstructive with respect to the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of his felon-in-possession conviction; and it was immaterial that he intended to obstruct only the prior child pornography case in which he was on pretrial release. View "United States v. Manning" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for review of the Board's denial of an application for benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), 45 U.S.C. 231 et seq. The court held that short periods of temporary employment, inadequately performed, did not constitute substantial gainful employment that would disqualify a claimant for benefits. The court further held that when considering the RRA's requirement of continuous disability, the court must look to the history of the claimant's disability and the claimant's success or lack thereof in sustaining meaningful employment. Accordingly, the court concluded that petitioner was entitled to benefits. View "Stephens, Jr. v. U.S Railroad Retirement Board" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, asserted that denials by prison officials of his request for a conjugal visit with his wife violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq., and the First Amendment, by interfering with his practice of a tenet of his Islamic faith requiring him to marry, consummate his marriage, and father children. The court held that because plaintiff's claim was based on an independently wrongful, discrete act in 2008, which was the denial of his request for conjugal visits with his second wife, his claims were not time-barred, notwithstanding the denial, pursuant to the same regulation, of his prior requests for conjugal visits with his first wife in 2002. View "Pouncil v. Tilton, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction and sentence for perjury and for making a false statement. Principally she challenged the district court's admission of testimony from a grand juror. She also challenged the district court's rejection of her claim of recantation, the sufficiency of the evidence, and her sentence. Because the court held that the admission of the grand juror's testimony was unduly prejudicial, the court reversed. View "United States v. Wiggan" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence for illegal reentry. The court held that a November 1, 2012 amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines clarified, rather than altered, existing law in providing that a probation revocation sentence served after deportation should not be used to calculate the "sentence imposed" under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1). Therefore, the court applied the amendment retroactively and concluded that the district court erred in imposing a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) rather than a 12-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(B). View "United States v. Catalan" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence on a conditional guilty plea for being an alien found in the United States following deportation. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the BIA did not err in finding defendant removeable based on his conviction for use of drug paraphernalia, which was a conviction "relating to a controlled substance" under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). The court held that the IJ did not violate due process by failing to inform defendant of the possibility of relief through a waiver of inadmissibility under section 1182(h). The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court abused its discretion and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. View "United States v. Oseguera-Madrigal" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed the district court's denial of a motion to dismiss a civil rights complaint. The court held that government officials were absolutely immune from civil liability for the decision not to extradite or to request only limited extradition of a criminal defendant. The court held that because the decision whether or not to extradite a criminal defendant was intimately associated with the criminal phase of the judicial process, defendants in this case were entitled to absolute immunity to the extent they participated in making the extradition decision described in plaintiffs' complaint. View "Slater, et al v. Clarke, et al" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed the district court's entry of judgment in favor of plaintiffs following a jury trial resolving plaintiff's claim that his mesothelioma was caused by occupational exposure to asbestos. Defendants contended that the district court abused its discretion by improperly admitting expert evidence. The court held that the district court did abuse its discretion when it failed to conduct a Daubert hearing or otherwise make relevance and reliability determinations regarding the expert testimony. The court held that the court's decision in Mukhtar v. California State University dictated that a new trial be provided in this circumstance. View "Barabin v. AstenJohnson Inc" on Justia Law