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

Defendant challenged the district court's decision to increase his sentence by two levels under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(1)(A). The court held that the district court did not err in enhancing defendant's sentence based on its finding that he constructively possessed four firearms. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Nungaray" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his jury conviction on two counts of distributing child pornography and one count of possessing child pornography. Defendant contended that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict him of distribution; the district court incorrectly instructed the jury on the definition of distribution; the district court erroneously denied his motion for a new trial; and the district court improperly denied him discovery on software that the FBI used in its investigation into his online file-sharing activities. The court held that the district court erred in denying defendant's discovery requests, but denied the remainder of defendant's challenges to his conviction. View "United States v. Budziak" on Justia Law

Defendant was prosecuted for failing to comply with the sex offender registration requirements set forth in 42 U.S.C. 16913. At issue was the constitutionality of certain key provisions of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), Pub. L. 109-248, Tit. I, 120 Stat. 590. Because SORNA violated neither the Ex Post Facto Clause nor defendant's constitutional right to due process, and because Congress acted within its enumerated powers in enacting it, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Mark Steven Elk Shoulder" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to a drug-related offense and received a sentence that included supervised release. On appeal, defendant challenged the requirement that he submit to periodic drug testing during his supervised release. The court dismissed the appeal because defendant's appellate waiver was enforceable and applicable in this case. View "United States v. Mendez-Gonzalez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's revocation of supervised release. At issue was whether the district court erred in treating a state criminal conviction as a felony rather than a misdemeanor, when the sole categorical difference was a recidivist history. The court concluded that the district court properly considered the conviction as a felony. However, because the district court included a written special condition of supervised release that the court did not include in its oral pronouncement of sentence, the court must vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged a Justice Department regulation, 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B), governing the process by which religious workers could apply for adjustment of status pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1255(a). The court held that the regulation did not bar religious workers from applying for adjustment of status. The regulation has only the practical effect of making it necessary for religious employers to file visa petitions earlier. Therefore, there was no violation of plaintiffs' due process rights. View "Ruiz-Diaz, et al v. United States, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitioned for review of the BIA's order of removal. The BIA vacated the decision of the IJ granting petitioner protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and cancellation of removal. Petitioner argued that the BIA acted beyond the scope of its authority under 8 C.F.R. 1003.1(d)(3) by reviewing the IJ's findings under a de novo rather than clear error standard and improperly engaging in its own factfinding. The court agreed that the BIA committed legal error in vacating the IJ's decision with respect to the CAT protection claim, and therefore granted the petition and remanded for further proceedings. As to cancellation of removal, the BIA applied the correct standard of review and the court denied the petition to that extent. View "Ridore v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

After an airplane was damaged in a runway accident, USAU indemnified the owner of the aircraft and brought a subrogation claim against Nabtesco. USAU alleged that the accident resulted from a defective component part, an actuator, manufactured by Nabtesco. The court affirmed the district court's order and held that the eighteen-year statute of repose set forth in the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994, 49 U.S.C. 40101, began to run from the date that the component part, along with the aircraft in which it was installed originally, was delivered to its first purchaser. View "United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc. v. Nabtesco Corp., et al" on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal, Motorola appealed from the district court's preliminary injunction to enjoin Motorola temporarily from enforcing a patent injunction that it obtained against Microsoft in Germany. The underlying case before the district court concerned how to interpret and enforce patent-holders' commitments to industry standard-setting organizations (SSOs), which established technical specifications to ensure that products from different manufacturers were compatible with each other. Specifically, the case involved the H.264 video coding standard set by International Telecommunications Union (ITU), and the 802.11 wireless local area network standard set by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). The court held that, under the unique circumstances of this case, the district court's narrowly tailored preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

HOS was arrested and indicted for various offenses. He claimed that he was a juvenile when these offenses were committed. HOS subsequently appealed the district court's grant of the U.S. Attorney's request to revoke its prior determination as to HOS's age based on a birth certificate the U.S. Attorney had obtained from the Mexican government that indicated that HOS was 23-years-old at the time of the charged offenses. The district judge thus ordered that the case proceed against HOS as an adult. The court rejected HOS's argument that the government was precluded from re-litigating the issue of his age. On the basis of the record before the court, the court could not conclude that the district judge abused his discretion or that his finding that HOS was an adult was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order. View "United States v. HOS" on Justia Law