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

Plaintiffs, Yellow Page Companies, challenged the validity of Seattle's imposition of substantial conditions and costs on the distribution of yellow page phone directories (Ordinance 123427). The district court rejected plaintiffs' challenges and granted summary judgment in favor of the City, allowing the Ordinance to stand. The court concluded that, although portions of the directories were obviously commercial in nature, the books contained more than that, and the court concluded that the directories were entitled to the full protection of the First Amendment. As a result, when the court evaluated the Ordinance under strict scrutiny, the Ordinance did not pass strict scrutiny because it was not the least restrictive means available to further the government's interest. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the City and remanded for the entry of judgment in favor of plaintiffs. View "Dex Media West, Inc., et al v. City of Seattle, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sought to install a temporary offsite sign advertising the television program "E! News" without obtaining the required City permits. Deeming the sign "strictly commercial in nature," the City notified plaintiffs that installation of the proposed sign would violate several provisions of its sign ordinance. The district court agreed with the City and granted judgment in its favor. The court held that, in light of plaintiffs' concessions that the E! News sign was an advertisement for a particular product and that it proposed a commercial transaction, the district court properly determined that the signs at issue were commercial speech and correctly dismissed plaintiffs' claims. View "Charles, et al v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

PRA appealed the district court's order granting plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and provisional class certification. Plaintiff's complaint alleged that PRA's debt collection efforts violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227. The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to issue the order; the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying a provisional class for purposes of the preliminary injunction; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery Assoc., et al" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment based on the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161, 3162, and the use of a two-level sentencing enhancement for use of a computer. The court held that defendant waived his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss; the trial court committed no error in enhancing defendant's sentence for use of a computer; and therefore, the district court's judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his requests to limit the courtroom presence of a law enforcement officer who was the prosecution's main witness. Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion and denied him due process by declining to exclude the officer from the courtroom, by allowing the officer to sit at the prosecution's table, and by declining to require the officer testify first. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that Federal Rule of Evidence 615 required a district court to permit a designated officer to be present during trial and any related decisions were discretionary. Accordingly, there was no abuse of discretion or violation of due process. View "United States v. Valencia-Riascos" on Justia Law

WWP originally filed this action in 2004 challenging the BLM's renewal of grazing permits in the Jarbidge Resource Area (JRA), covering a large expanse of Southern Idaho. At issue on appeal, was whether the district court erred in denying WWP fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(1)(A). The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying fees where the district court considered the reasonableness of the underlying agency decision to issue grazing authorization after the fire at issue, and the reasonableness of the litigation strategy defending that decision View "Western Watersheds Project v. Ellis, et al" on Justia Law

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