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

Defendant appealed his conviction for illegal possession of a homemade machine gun under 18 U.S.C. 922(o). Defendant contended (1) he had a Second Amendment right to possess a homemade machine gun in his home, and (2) Congress did not have the power to enact section 922(o)'s prohibition against possessing machine guns pursuant to the powers delegated to it in the Commerce Clause. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction, holding (1) machine guns are "dangerous and unusual weapons" that are unprotected by the Second Amendment; and (2) Defendant's second argument failed because the Court already held in United States v. Stewart that the Commerce Clause authorizes section 922(o)'s machine gun possession ban. View "United States v. Henry" on Justia Law

Defendant, an alien, was convicted of robbery under Cal. Penal Code 211 in 1994 and again in 1996. Defendant later pleaded guilty to a charge of unlawful reentry after he illegally reentered the United States. The presentence report recommended a sixteen-level enhancement in the offense level for Defendant's prior robbery convictions, which it identified as crimes of violence under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2. Defendant objected to the enhancement, arguing that after a recent decision by the California Supreme Court, convictions under section 211 were no longer categorical crimes of violence. The district court rejected this argument and imposed the enhancement. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a conviction under section 211 remains a categorical crime of violence under the "enumerated offenses" definition in section 2L1.2. View "United States v. Flores-Mejia" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed a district court judgment affirming the Social Security Administration's (SSA) decision finding him disabled from September 26, 1997 through December 3, 1998, and concluding that the disability ended on December 4, 1998 due to medical improvement. Appellant contended that the ALJ's medical improvement finding was not supported by substantial evidence because she erred in relying on a single proposed rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (the 2001 decision). Appellant also claimed that the ALJ erred by failing to mention the opinion of his treating physician. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the ALJ erred in relying solely on the 2001 decision, as (1) the 2001 only proposed changes while ignoring two other decisions that rejected the proposed changes recommended in the 2001 decision; and (2) the ALJ's misunderstanding led her to inaccurately conclude that her finding that Appellant's disability terminated on December 4, 1998 was consistent with the VA's ratings. View "Hiler v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Petitioners, the Native Village of Kilalina IRA Council and other Alaskan groups, appealed the EPA Environmental Appeals Board's (EAB) order denying review of their challenges to a permit authorizing Intervenor Teck Alaska, Inc. to discharge wastewater caused by the operation of Red Dog Mine. The EAB concluded that Kivalina had not satisfied the procedural requirements to obtain review under 40 C.F.R. 124.19(a) because it did not demonstrate why the EPA's responses to comments were clearly erroneous or otherwise warranted review. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioners' petition for review, holding that Petitioners did not meet the requirements of section 124.19. View "Native Village of Kivalina IRA Council v. EPA" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute various quantities of methamphetamine, including one quantity of more than 900 grams. The district court sentenced Defendant to 135 months in prison. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that he was the victim of sentencing entrapment. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not subject to sentencing entrapment because he had the intent and capacity to produce more than 900 grams of methamphetamine and acted on that intent without hesitation; (2) the district court did not err in failing to impose a two-point enhancement, as a defendant need not be personally involved in the importation of illegal drugs to receive the U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement for an offense involving the importation of a controlled substance; and (3) Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable even though it was the same as his co-defendant's sentence, as the co-defendant cooperated with the government while Defendant did not. View "United States v. Huang" on Justia Law

This appeal raised the question of whether a civil detention under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which sets up a process for civil commitment of sexually dangerous persons, constitutes a term of imprisonment that both precludes and tolls the commencement of a supervised release term of a sex offender who has completed his incarceration for a criminal conviction. Following the expiration of his criminal sentence, Defendant was detained under the Act's stay-of-release provision. Though Defendant received no hearing during his stay period and was detained only pursuant to a civil statute, the government argued that Defendant was imprisoned in connection with a criminal conviction, thus tolling the commencement of his term of supervised release. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court, holding that, during the almost five years Defendant was detained while awaiting his civil commitment hearing, he was not "imprisoned in connection with a conviction," which was required to toll the commencement of supervised release. View "United States v. Turner" on Justia Law

The United States petitioned the district court for an order enforcing a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) subpoena served on Golden Valley Electric Association (Golden Valley) for power consumption records concerning three customer residences. The court granted the petition and ordered compliance. Golden Valley complied with the subpoena but appealed the order. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Golden Valley's compliance with the district court's enforcement order did not moot the appeal; (2) the DEA's subpoena sought information relevant to a drug investigation, was procedurally proper, and was not overly broad; and (3) the subpoena complied with the Fourth Amendment. View "United States v. Golden Valley Elec. Ass'n" on Justia Law

As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said, "This case lends credence to the old adage that bad things comes in threes." Plaintiff was a cancer survivor who required experimental leukemia treatment. During his treatment, Plaintiff's identity was stolen by a hospital worker. When Plaintiff attempted to remedy the identity theft, the banks and credit rating agencies were allegedly uncooperative and continued to report the fraudulently opened accounts. In the case of Chase Bank (Chase), the thief's address was tagged as Plaintiff's. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Chase on Plaintiff's false-reporting claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (1) reversed the judgment as to Chase's alleged violations of the FCRA, as issues of material fact remained on this issue; (2) reversed the district court's dismissal of similar claims against FIA Card Services on statute of limitations grounds; and (3) affirmed the denial of Plaintiff's motion to amend to reinstate his claims under California law. View "Drew v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for illegal reentry, making a false statement in a passport application, and making a false statement in an application for supplemental security income benefits. These convictions rested on the government's allegation that Defendant was not a United States citizen. To prove that allegation, the government introduced a document appearing to be a transcription of Defendant's birth certificate from the Philippines. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Defendant's convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that the introduction of the birth certificate violated Defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "United States v. Bustamante" on Justia Law

Four days after Plaintiff, a detective in the City of Burbank Police Department, disclosed the alleged use of abusive interrogation tactics by his colleagues to the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, he was placed on administrative leave by the chief of police. Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit against the chief of police and others in the Burbank Police Department, alleging that his placement on administrative leave was unconstitutional retaliation for the exercise of his First Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the suit, concluding that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Huppert v. City of Pittsburg controlled Plaintiff's case. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court correctly found that, under Huppert, Plaintiff's disclosure to the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department was made in the course of his official duties, and thus fell outside the protection offered by the First Amendment. View "Dahlia v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law