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

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after removal. The court affirmed the sentence, holding that a prior conviction for "rape of a child in the third degree," in violation of Revised Code of Washington section 9A.44.079, categorically qualified as "statutory rape," which was a crime of violence for the purpose of a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). View "United States v. Zamorano-Ponce" on Justia Law

Tim Wilborn appealed the reduction of attorneys' fees he earned while representing plaintiff in a Social Security benefits claim. At issue was whether Wilborn received fees for the same work under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. 2412, and the Social Security Act (SSA), 42 U.S.C. 406(b)(1). The court held that the $5,000 award under the EAJA was for the "same work" as the work for which Wilborn received the section 406(b)(1) award, and therefore the district court correctly offset the $5,000 from the 25% award. View "Parrish v. Commissioner Social Security" on Justia Law

In this prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, plaintiff appealed from the dismissal with prejudice of his first amended complaint for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated his rights by failing to comply with his medical "chrono," which required him to be housed in a ground floor cell and that defendants failed to provide him with an interpreter at medical appointments. The court held that the district court erred by refusing to consider arguments that plaintiff raised for the first time in his objections to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations on defendants' motion to dismiss; concluding that defendant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; and dismissing his complaint on the ground that he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Further, the district court erred by failing to provide notice pursuant to Rand v. Rowland. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Akhtar v. J. Mesa, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged the FWS's Biological Opinion regarding the Ruby Pipeline Project, which involved the construction, operation, and maintenance of a 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline extending from Wyoming to Oregon. The court set aside the Opinion as arbitrary and capricious and set aside the Record of Decisions because it relied on the invalid Opinion. The court remanded for the agency to formulate a revised Opinion that: (1) addresses the impacts, if any, of Ruby's groundwater withdrawal on listed fish species and critical habitat; and (2) categorizes and treats the Conservation Action Plan measures as "interrelated actions" or excludes any reliance on their beneficial effects in making a revised jeopardy and adverse modification. View "Center for Biological Diversity. v. BLM, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for assaulting a federal officer. Defendant argued that his conviction should be reversed because the district court's jury instructions failed to inform the jury adequately that the government bore the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense. The court concluded that the jury instructions in this case correctly stated the government's burden of proof on the entire issue of self-defense. The court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Pepper" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated plaintiffs, argued that a series of automated telephone calls placed to his home by Best Buy violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227, and the Washington Automatic Dialing and Announcing Device Act (WADAD), Wash. Rev. Code 80.36.400. The court concluded that these calls were aimed at encouraging listeners to engage in future commercial transactions with Best Buy to purchase its goods. They constituted unsolicited advertisements, telephone solicitations, and telemarketing, and were prohibited by the TCPA, the WADAD, and the Washington Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code 80.36.400(3). View "Chesbro v. Best Buy Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's decision to modify the protective order issued in his federal habeas proceeding to permit respondent to turn over materials produced during the federal proceeding to the agency that would prosecute his resentencing. The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting the motion for modification as to materials that were privileged. The court vacated the portion of the order relating to privileged materials and remanded to the district court for further proceedings to resolve all disputes as to which specific materials were privileged and thus were covered by its protective order. The court held, however, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in modifying the protective order so as to exclude from its coverage non-privileged material, and therefore affirmed that portion of its order. Because the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing, the disqualification of the Arizona Attorney General's Office from representing respondents was not moot. View "Lambright v. Ryan" on Justia Law

RSA appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissal of RSA's claim for copyright infringement, related to pilot escort vehicle manuals, against Evergreen on the ground of laches. The court held that Evergreen did not willfully infringe upon RSA's copyright because it acted under color of title and in good faith. The court also held that the alleged future infringements named as the basis for the injunctive relief were identical to the original infringements and were thus barred by laches as well. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Evergreen Safety Council v. RSA Network Inc." on Justia Law

The district court concluded that the State of Montana's contribution limits in Montana Code Annotated 13-37-216 were unconstitutional under the First Amendment and permanently enjoined the State from enforcing its campaign contribution limits. The State sought a stay of the district court's order, pending appeal. The court concluded that the state was likely to succeed on appeal. The court concluded that the State had made a strong showing that a merits panel of the court would likely conclude that, absent en banc proceedings or an intervening decision of the Supreme Court, the court remained bound by its decision in Mont. Right to Life Ass'n v. Eddleman. The court also concluded that a merits panel was likely to hold that the analytical framework of the Supreme Court's decision in Randall v. Sorrell did not alter the analysis of Buckley v. Valeo or Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC in a way that affected the court's decision in Eddleman. In light of the State's interest in regulating campaign contributions, the lack of evidence that other parties would be substantially injured, and the public's substantial interest in the stability of its electoral system in the final weeks leading to an election, the court will stay the order pending the state's appeal. View "Lair, et al v. Bullock, et al" on Justia Law

These consolidated petitions for review challenged a contract between the BPA and one of its long-time customers, Alcoa. BPA's preference customers and others filed this petition for review, requesting that the court hold that the contract was unlawful because it was inconsistent with the agency's statutory mandate to act in accordance with sound business principles. Petitioners claimed, among other things, that instead of entering into a contract to sell power to Alcoa at the statutorily required Industrial Firm power (IP) rate, BPA should sell to other buyers at the market rate. The court denied the petitions for review insofar as they pertained to the Initial Period. Because the potential for BPA and Alcoa to enter into the Second Period of the contract was no longer before the court, the court dismissed those portions of the petitions. Finally, the court held that because BPA relied on a categorical exclusion to the National Environmental Policy Act's (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, requirements, declining to complete an Environmental Impact Statement was not arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the court denied petitioner's NEPA claim. View "Alcoa Inc. v. BPA, et al" on Justia Law