Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of attempted entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and (b). On appeal, defendant claimed that the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) precluded any meaningful judicial review of an expedited removal order, including review of a collateral challenge to such an order in a section 1326 action; under United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, some meaningful review of the order was constitutionally required before the order could be used as a predicate to a criminal proceeding; and therefore, because the statue precluded review, expedited removal orders could not be used as predicates in section 1326 prosecutions. The court held that defendant was entitled to judicial review of the predicate expedited removal orders underlying his section 1326 prosecution but failed to show any prejudice resulting from the alleged procedural flaws in the proceedings that resulted in those orders. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss his indictment and the subsequent conviction and sentence.

Appellant appealed his conviction on various counts related to transporting and harboring illegal aliens. Appellant challenged the district court's decision to admit into evidence videotaped deposition testimony of detained material witnesses pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3144. For the first time on appeal, defendant argued that the statute was facially invalid and that the court erred by permitting the government to admit the depositions into evidence at trial without any showing of a witness's unavailability. Appellant also argued that the magistrate judge failed to comply with the statue and that certain procedural requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 15 and General Order 05-34 of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona were unmet. The court held that the bulk of appellant's claims were meritless. The court did agree that the district court plainly erred by permitting the government to introduce the now-contested depositions into evidence without a showing of unavailability. The court, however, declined to accord appellant any relief because the court was not persuaded that "the error seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of [the] proceedings." Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment of conviction.

While handcuffed in the back seat of a patrol car, Everardo Torres (Everardo) was mortally mounded when a Madera City Police Officer shot him in the chest with her Glock semiautomatic pistol, believing it at the time to be her Taser M26 stun gun. Everardo's family filed this survival action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, asserting excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment and subsequently appealed from an adverse grant of summary judgment. The court held that, while a jury might ultimately find that the officer's mistake of weapon to have been reasonable, it was inappropriate for the district court to reach this conclusion in the face of material facts in dispute. The court held that, at this stage in the proceeding, the officer had not shown an entitlement to qualified immunity and summary judgment was therefore improperly granted.

Plaintiff and his children (plaintiffs) brought a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit against defendants for damages resulting from plaintiff's unlawful arrest. Plaintiff was arrested as he stood outside a fair selling promotional tickets for $5 that he had received for free from a radio station. At issue was whether the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on the grounds of qualified immunity. The court agreed with the district court that there was no probable cause to arrest plaintiff and his right to be free from unlawful arrest was violated. The court held, however, that the district court's grant of summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity for an unlawful arrest was reversed where all reasonably competent officers would have agreed that plaintiff was not committing a crime because there was no scalping law in Nevada; it was simply not a crime to sell tickets to a fair; plaintiff's t-shirt, which had the logo of the radio station, did not suggest fraud; and the ticket buyers were not duped by the sale. The court also held that plaintiffs' substantive due process right to family integrity was not violated where the facts of the case did not come close to rising to the level of conduct that shocked the conscience. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's claim on this issue.

Defendant appealed his conviction for failing to register as a sex offender and challenged the legality of the Attorney General's interim regulation for failure to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. In United States v. Valverde, the court held that for persons such as defendant, who were convicted of sex offenses prior to the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act's (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. 16911, 16913, enactment, SORNA's registration requirements did not become effective until August 1, 2008, because the Attorney General's interim regulation did not comply with the APA. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded this case for dismissal of the indictment.

Defendant appealed his misdemeanor convictions, after retrial, of three counts of violating 18 U.S.C. 1382. Defendant's charges arose from his protest activities on Ocean Avenue, which was a public road that crossed the Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB). On appeal, defendant argued that his retrial violated the proscription against double jeopardy, that there was insufficient evidence to convict, and that his conviction violated his First Amendment rights. The court found that in all three incidents, defendant was within the physical limits of the public road easement corresponding to Ocean Avenue, a fact which the government did not challenge. The court held that because the government did not have an exclusive right of possession over Ocean Avenue, defendant's presence and protest activities could not constitute violations of section 1382 under the court's precedent.

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of a decision of the BIA ordering him removed to his native country. The BIA affirmed the IJ's ruling that petitioner was ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) because he had been "convicted of a particularly serious crime," driving under the influence (DUI). The BIA also ruled that petitioner was ineligible for deferral of removal under the CAT because he failed to prove a likelihood of future torture. The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the BIA's determination that an alien had been convicted of a "particularly serious crime." The court also held that driving under the influence was not statutorily defined as an aggravated felony did not preclude the BIA from determining that it could be a particularly serious crime. The court further held that the BIA, as the Attorney General's delegate, was permitted in this case to determine whether petitioner's DUI offenses were particularly serious for purposes of asylum eligibility. The court held, however, that the BIA's explanation for its decision was so ambiguous that the court could not conduct meaningful judicial review and therefore, remanded to the BIA for a clear explanation.

Defendant was convicted of one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and one count of possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to have his sentence reduced pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court held that, when determining a sentencing range under U.S.S.G. 1B1.10(b), a district court could apply the offense level dictated by the career offender guidelines, U.S.S.G. 4B1.1, offense level at the defendant's original sentencing, so long as the court determined at the original sentencing that defendant was a career offender. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of defendant's motion for a reduction of sentence.

In these consolidated appeals, respondents appealed the district court's order granting petitioner's, an enrolled member of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. At issue was whether the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. 1302(7), prohibited the tribal court from imposing consecutive sentences cumulatively exceeding one year for multiple criminal violations arising from a single criminal transaction. The court held that section 1302(7) unambiguously permitted tribal courts to impose up to a one-year term of imprisonment for each discrete criminal violation. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court.

This case arose when a student told a police officer that her teacher, plaintiff, inappropriately touched her and police subsequently searched plaintiff's home for child pornography. Plaintiff and his son sued the police officer, the City of Covina, and the Chief of Police for violating his constitutional rights, claiming that the city and the officers violated his and his son's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure; the city inadequately trained and inadequately investigated complaints about its officers (Monell claim); and all defendants inadequately supervised and trained their subordinates with respect to the incidents alleged. The court held that, under the totality of the circumstances, a search warrant issued to search a suspect's home computer and electronic equipment lacked probable cause when no evidence of possession or attempt to posses child pornography was submitted to the issuing magistrate; no evidence was submitted to the magistrate regarding computer or electronics used by the suspect; and the only evidence linking the suspect's attempted child molestation to possession of child pornography was the experience of the requesting police officer, with no further explanation. The court held, however, that it had not previously addressed such issues and therefore, the officers involved in the search were entitled to qualified immunity. The court also affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's Monell and supervisory liability claims where amending the complaint would be futile.