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

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

Petitioner claimed that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea-bargaining process. Plaintiff alleged that counsel advised him to reject a plea offer of six years' imprisonment without alerting him that he was being charged with a crime that would qualify as a "third strike" under California law. He later entered an open plea and was sentenced to a three strikes sentence of twenty-five years to life in prison. Without granting an evidentiary hearing, the California Supreme Court summarily denied his state petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Following the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye, the court reversed the district court's denial of the petition for habeas corpus and remanded to the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing on petitioner's claims. View "Miles v. Martel" on Justia Law

In Chambers v. Mississippi, the United States Supreme Court clearly established that the exclusion of trustworthy and necessary exculpatory testimony at trial violated a defendant's due process right to present a defense. This clearly established federal law applied at the time the California Supreme Court decided People v. Cudjo, the subject of this habeas appeal. The facts in Chambers were materially indistinguishable from the facts in this appeal. Therefore, the California Supreme Court's decision was contrary to clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court, and the error was not harmless. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's denial of petitioner's habeas petition and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cudjo, Jr. v. Ayers, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Austrian-owned OBB after sustaining personal injuries as a result of her attempt to board a moving train in Innsbruck. In this case, the court considered what acts could be attributed to a foreign state in applying the commercial activity exception to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1602 et seq. The court concluded that Rail Pass Experts' sale of the Eurorail pass could not, under Doe v. Holy See, be imputed to OBB. Plaintiff did not allege a day-to-day, routine involvement of OBB in Eurorail, much less Rail Pass Experts. Therefore, the court held that OBB engaged in no commercial activity within the United States that would strip it of its immunity. View "Sachs v. Republic of Austria, et al" on Justia Law

The Forest Service limited the use of motor vehicles to certain roads in the century-old Eldorado National Forest (ENF). Concerned about the impact of the limitation on their activities, a group of miners and prospectors challenged the Forest Service's decision. The court held that the miners had standing to bring this suit. Still, the Forest Service acted within its authority when it prohibited cross country vehicle traffic and limited motor vehicle use to certain designated roads in the ENF. The "public roads" provision in 36 C.F.R. 228.4(a)(1) did not create an exception to the 2008 Decision because the roads on which motor vehicles were prohibited ceased to be "public roads," as reasonably defined by the Forest Service. View "Public Lands For The People, Inc., et al v. AGRI, et al" on Justia Law