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

Ronald Myers pleaded guilty in 2005 to possessing an implement for counterfeiting state securities and transporting a stolen motor vehicle across state lines. He was sentenced to 60 months in prison, 3 years of supervised release, and ordered to pay $40,406 in restitution. Myers completed his sentence in 2010 but was reincarcerated in 2013 on other charges. Since then, over $30,500 has been deposited into his inmate trust account, mostly from family and friends, with a smaller portion from prison wages. Myers still owes over $35,000 in restitution.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granted the government's motion to turn over funds from Myers's inmate trust account to apply to his restitution obligation. The court rejected Myers's request for an evidentiary hearing to determine which funds were prison wages, concluding that the government had provided sufficient evidence of the account's composition. The court held that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3664(n), applies to substantial aggregated sums from multiple sources, not just one-time financial windfalls.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order. The court held that § 3664(n) applies to substantial resources from any source, including gradual accumulations from family and friends, and not just to one-time windfalls. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing, as the existing documentary evidence was sufficient. The court concluded that the turnover order did not contravene the judgment's restitution provisions and was consistent with the MVRA's goal of ensuring prompt restitution to victims. View "United States v. Myers" on Justia Law

A nonprofit organization challenged the United States Forest Service's approval of a forest thinning project in the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Washington. The project aimed to reduce wildfire risk and improve forest health through various treatments, including tree thinning and prescribed burns. The organization argued that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by not reopening the public comment period after significant changes were made to the project following a wildfire, and by failing to consider a reasonable range of alternatives and the cumulative effects of the project.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granted summary judgment in favor of the Forest Service, finding that the agency had complied with NEPA requirements. The court held that the Forest Service was not required to repeat the public comment process and that the Environmental Assessment (EA) considered a reasonable range of alternatives.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that the Forest Service was not required to repeat the public comment process because the changes made to the project did not pose new environmental questions or render the public's comments on the Draft EA irrelevant. The court also found that the Forest Service considered a reasonable range of alternatives and that the use of condition-based management did not inherently violate NEPA.However, the court reversed the district court's decision regarding the cumulative effects analysis. The Ninth Circuit held that the EA's discussion of cumulative effects was insufficient because it did not consider the cumulative effects of the Twisp Restoration Project in combination with the Midnight Restoration Project, which was originally part of the same project. The court remanded the case for the district court to order the Forest Service to remedy the deficiencies in the EA and determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is necessary. View "North Cascades Conservation Council v. Forest Service" on Justia Law

In 1987, John Bejarano shot and killed Roland Wright, a cab driver, during a robbery. Bejarano was convicted of first-degree murder, robbery, and other felonies. During the penalty phase, Bejarano made threatening statements to the jury, which contributed to his death sentence. The Nevada Supreme Court dismissed his direct appeal and Bejarano filed several unsuccessful post-conviction petitions in state and federal courts.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied Bejarano’s habeas corpus petition. Bejarano argued that the district court wrongly denied him an evidentiary hearing and that his trial counsel was ineffective for not presenting additional mitigation evidence. The district court found that Bejarano failed to exercise due diligence in developing the factual basis for his claims and denied the evidentiary hearing. It also concluded that even if trial counsel’s performance was deficient, Bejarano was not prejudiced.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Bejarano was not diligent in presenting his evidence in state court, and thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing. The court also found that Bejarano’s trial counsel’s performance was not deficient and that Bejarano was not prejudiced by any alleged deficiencies. Additionally, the court concluded that the Nevada Supreme Court provided appropriate appellate scrutiny of Bejarano’s death sentence.The Ninth Circuit denied Bejarano’s request for a certificate of appealability on three other issues, as he did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court ultimately affirmed the district court’s denial of Bejarano’s habeas corpus petition. View "Bejarano v. Reubart" on Justia Law

Kevin Niedzialek died after being restrained by Riverside County Sheriff’s Department deputies. The deputies responded to a 911 call reporting a man having a psychotic episode. Upon arrival, they found Niedzialek bleeding from the head and acting erratically. After he advanced towards one of the deputies, they used a taser to subdue him and handcuffed him while he was prone. Niedzialek continued to struggle but eventually became unresponsive. The deputies did not move him into a recovery position or perform CPR before paramedics arrived. Niedzialek died the next day.In the United States District Court for the Central District of California, a civil jury found that the deputies did not use excessive force under the Fourth Amendment but acted negligently under California law. The jury awarded $1.5 million to Niedzialek’s successor-in-interest, Tracy Alves. The defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that the jury’s mixed verdicts were irreconcilable because the legal standard for reasonableness was the same for both claims. The district court denied the motion, stating that California’s negligence standard is broader than the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the jury’s verdicts were reconcilable because California’s “reasonable care” standard considers the totality of circumstances more broadly than the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard. The jury could have found that the deputies did not use excessive force but still breached their duty of care by failing to monitor Niedzialek’s condition or place him in a recovery position. The court concluded that it was possible to reconcile the jury’s verdicts based on the evidence and theories presented at trial. View "Alves v. Riverside County" on Justia Law

The case involves four affiliated companies, collectively known as the Pangang Companies, which were indicted for economic espionage related to their alleged efforts to steal trade secrets from E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (DuPont) concerning the production of titanium dioxide. The Pangang Companies argued that they were immune from criminal prosecution in the United States under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) because they are owned and controlled by the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the Pangang Companies' motion to dismiss the indictment, holding that the FSIA did not apply to criminal cases and that even if it did, the commercial activity and implied waiver exceptions to the FSIA would apply. The Pangang Companies appealed, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals initially held that the companies failed to make a prima facie showing that they were covered entities under the FSIA.Upon remand, the district court again denied the motion to dismiss, reiterating that the Pangang Companies did not qualify for immunity under the FSIA and also rejecting their claims to common-law immunity. The court found that the companies did not exercise functions comparable to those of an agency of the PRC and thus were not entitled to immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that under federal common law, the Pangang Companies did not make a prima facie showing that they exercised functions comparable to those of an agency of the PRC. Therefore, they were not eligible for foreign sovereign immunity from criminal prosecution. The court also noted that principles of deference to the political branches on matters touching on foreign relations reinforced this conclusion. View "USA V. PANGANG GROUP COMPANY, LTD." on Justia Law

Roberto Gonzalez-Loera pleaded guilty in March 2015 to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, violating 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court adopted the presentence report, which included a four-level enhancement for Gonzalez-Loera's role as an organizer or leader under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). This resulted in a total offense level of 39 and a guideline range of 262 to 327 months. Gonzalez-Loera was sentenced to 262 months' imprisonment.After his sentencing, the United States Sentencing Commission created a new retroactive guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1, which allows for a two-level reduction for certain defendants with zero criminal history points. Gonzalez-Loera moved for a sentence reduction under this new guideline, arguing that he met the criteria. The government opposed, stating that Gonzalez-Loera was ineligible because he had received an aggravating role adjustment under § 3B1.1. The district court agreed with the government and denied the motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a)(10) contains two distinct requirements: a defendant must not have received an adjustment under § 3B1.1 and must not have been engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise. A defendant is ineligible for relief if either condition is not met. Since Gonzalez-Loera received an adjustment under § 3B1.1, he did not meet the criteria for a sentence reduction under § 4C1.1. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Gonzalez-Loera's motion to reduce his sentence. View "USA V. GONZALEZ-LOERA" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Mya Noelia Fallon, applied for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under the Social Security Act, citing epileptic seizures and cognitive and behavioral limitations. Her application included assessments from her neurologist, Dr. Joseph Drazkowski, and licensed professional counselor (LPC) Terry Galler, who noted significant cognitive impairments and anxiety disorders. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Fallon not disabled, giving minimal weight to the opinions of Dr. Drazkowski and LPC Galler, and discrediting other medical and lay testimony.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona partially reversed the ALJ's decision, finding errors in the discounting of some witnesses but agreeing with the ALJ's assessment of Dr. Drazkowski's and LPC Galler's opinions. The case was remanded for further consideration. On remand, the ALJ again found Fallon not disabled, incorporating the prior evaluations. Fallon appealed, and the district court affirmed the ALJ's decision, refusing to revisit its prior conclusions about the medical opinions based on the law-of-the-case doctrine.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the law-of-the-case doctrine applies in the social security context, meaning that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to reconsider the evaluations of Dr. Drazkowski and LPC Galler. The court explained that a social-security applicant has two options to preserve the right to appeal: immediately appeal the remand order or proceed on remand, understanding that the district court may decline to revisit settled issues. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, noting that Fallon forfeited her ability to challenge the evaluations by not raising the issue in her first appeal. View "FALLON V. DUDEK" on Justia Law

Defendants, alleged victims of a Ponzi scheme perpetrated by John Woods, sought to bring claims against Woods's employer, Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., in a FINRA arbitration forum. Defendants claimed they were customers of Oppenheimer because they transacted with Woods, an associated person of Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer filed a federal action seeking a declaration that Defendants were not its customers and a permanent injunction to prevent arbitration.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted summary judgment in favor of Oppenheimer, concluding that Defendants were not customers of Oppenheimer or Woods. The court found that Defendants had no direct relationship with Oppenheimer and that their investments were facilitated by Michael Mooney, not Woods. The court also issued a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from arbitrating their claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit held that a "customer" under FINRA Rule 12200 includes any non-broker and non-dealer who purchases commodities or services from a FINRA member or its associated person. However, the court agreed with the district court that Defendants did not transact with Woods, as their investments were facilitated by Mooney. The court also rejected Defendants' "alter ego" theory, which suggested that their investments in an entity controlled by Woods made them Woods's customers.The Ninth Circuit concluded that Defendants were not entitled to arbitrate their claims against Oppenheimer under FINRA Rule 12200 and upheld the permanent injunction. The court found no errors in the district court's analysis or factual findings and affirmed the decision in full. View "OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. V. MITCHELL" on Justia Law

Three criminal defendants in San Francisco, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, challenged the constitutionality of the San Francisco Sheriff's Office (SFSO) Pre-Trial Electronic Monitoring program (PTEM). They specifically contested Rule 5, which requires enrollees to submit to warrantless searches, and Rule 11, which allows SFSO to share participants’ location data with other law enforcement agencies without a warrant and to retain the data. The plaintiffs were divided into two subclasses: those enrolled in the program before May 2023 ("original rules subclass") and those enrolled after May 2023 ("revised rules subclass").The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the Program Rules likely violated their rights under the United States and California constitutions. The court enjoined the enforcement of the challenged Program Rules for both subclasses. The Sheriff appealed the injunction, particularly the prohibition on enforcing the location sharing provision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that it had jurisdiction over the appeals and that abstention was not warranted. The court found that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their facial challenges to Rule 11’s location sharing requirement for the revised rules subclass. The court determined that the Superior Court exercises a core judicial power in imposing PTEM and that the Sheriff’s program does not create separation-of-powers issues. The court also found that the location sharing provision was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and the California Constitution when ordered by the Superior Court following an individualized determination. The court vacated the preliminary injunction as to the revised rules subclass but affirmed it for the original rules subclass due to the lack of a clear record that location sharing was a condition of PTEM enrollment. The court also granted the Sheriff’s motion to stay the district court’s subsequent order enforcing the preliminary injunction. View "SIMON V. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO" on Justia Law

Maris Oscar, a Haitian national, sought asylum in the United States, claiming persecution by the Parti Haïtien Tèt Kale (PHTK) in Haiti. Oscar testified that PHTK members attacked him in 2014 after he refused to join them. He fled Haiti in November 2014 and resettled in Chile in January 2015, where he lived for six years, attended university, worked, and received health coverage. Oscar and his family were granted permanent residence in Chile, as indicated by their Chilean identification cards. Oscar reported experiencing racism in Chile but did not claim any harm from the Chilean government.An immigration judge (IJ) denied Oscar's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), citing the firm resettlement bar due to his permanent residence in Chile. The IJ found that Oscar's reports of racism did not qualify him for an exception to the firm resettlement bar. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the IJ's decision, leading Oscar to petition for review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and denied Oscar's petition. The court held that the Chilean government's issuance of an identification card with "Visa: PERMANENT RESIDENCE" constituted direct evidence of a firm offer of resettlement. Oscar failed to show that the firm resettlement bar did not apply, as his argument that his Chilean residence status had been revoked was insufficient. Additionally, the court found that Oscar did not experience substantial discrimination that would qualify for an exception to the firm resettlement bar, and there was no evidence that the Chilean government consciously restricted his residence. Thus, the firm resettlement bar rendered Oscar ineligible for asylum. View "OSCAR V. BONDI" on Justia Law