Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence for online enticement of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b), travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(b), and engaging in illicit conduct in foreign places in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(c).The panel affirmed the district court's denials of defendant's motion for a competency hearing. The panel explained that, at no point in the proceedings was there substantial evidence of defendant's incompetence. Rather, the evidence reveals a consistent pattern of intentionally disrupting the proceedings and feigning incompetence to avoid trial and later, sentencing. The panel concluded that the district court acted within its discretion by excluding the testimony of defendant's psychiatrist. Under either de novo or abuse of discretion review, the panel concluded that the district court correctly denied defendant's Faretta request, which was made for the purpose of delay. The panel also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of a forensic-psychologist. Finally, the panel concluded that the district court did not err in applying USSG 4B1.5(b)(1), which requires that the defendant engaged in a "pattern of activity" involving prohibited sexual conduct. View "United States v. Telles" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence for conspiracy with intent to distribute at least 50 grams of methamphetamine, distribution of methamphetamine, and being a felon in possession of a firearm.The panel held that the district court did not err by allowing the government to rebut defendant's entrapment defense in its case in chief, or by allowing the government to introduce evidence of his affiliation with gangs to rebut that defense. Furthermore, any error in allowing defendant's parole officer to testify was harmless. Finally, the panel concluded that the district court did not err by applying a two-level sentence enhancement under USSG 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a firearm during a drug-trafficking offense. View "United States v. Gomez" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Defendant challenges his convictions for interstate domestic violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2261(a)(1), and use of a firearm in relation to a violent crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c), arguing that the predicate offenses underlying these convictions no longer qualify as categorical "crimes of violence" in light of Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018). Dimaya held that the residual-clause definition of "crime of violence" in 18 U.S.C. 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague.The panel agreed with the government that defendant has not demonstrated that he was convicted and sentenced in violation of Dimaya and therefore fails to satisfy the gatekeeping provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. 2255(h)(2). The panel explained that the record and relevant background legal environment confirm that the district court's determination that Idaho assault and battery qualify as crimes of violence did not rest on section 16(b). Because defendant's section 2261 and section 924(c) convictions did not rely on section 16(b), the panel concluded that defendant's challenges to those convictions do not "rely on" Dimaya. Therefore, defendant's second section 2255 motion does not meet the gatekeeping requirements for a second or successive motion. View "United States v. Dade" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a motion brought by plaintiffs, four affiliated Chinese companies, seeking to dismiss an indictment charging violations of the criminal provisions of the Economic Espionage Act. The Pangang Companies moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that they are "instrumentalities" of the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) and are therefore entitled to sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).After determining that it had appellate jurisdiction, the panel concluded that, in moving to dismiss the indictment, the Pangang Companies failed to carry their burden to make a prima facie showing that they are instrumentalities of a foreign sovereign within the meaning of the FSIA. In this case, the allegations of the indictment, standing alone, are insufficient to establish that the Pangang Companies were instrumentalities of the PRC on the date they were indicted. The panel explained that, because the Pangang Companies relied solely upon the indictment’s allegations, and presented no evidence to support their motion to dismiss, they necessarily failed to establish a prima facie case that they were foreign states entitled to immunity under section 1604 of the FSIA. Therefore, the motion to dismiss was properly denied. View "United States v. Pangang Group Co." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying cancellation of removal to petitioner.The panel incorporated by reference the factual and procedural background of Marinelarena I that conspiracy under California Penal Code 182(a)(1) is overbroad but divisible as to the target crime, and that sale and transport of a controlled substance under California Health and Safety Code 11352, is overbroad and divisible as to controlled substance. The panel concluded that Pereida v. Wilkinson, 141 S. Ct. 754 (2021), is consistent with Marinelarena I, and that Petitioner failed to establish that her conviction did not involve a federally controlled substance. In regard to divisibility, the panel noted that no developments in the California Supreme Court since Marinelarena I undermined the panel's earlier divisibility analysis, and that the jury instructions relating to the conspiracy offense, as well as petitioner's underlying statute of conviction, support divisibility. In regard to the burden of proof, the panel explained that Marinelarena I is consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Pereida and that petitioner failed to establish that her conviction did not involve a federally controlled substance. The panel declined petitioner's invitation to remand to present additional evidence. Finally, the panel reaffirmed its conclusion that a conviction expunged under CPC 1203.4 remains a "conviction" for federal immigration purposes. View "Marinelarena v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in an action where defendant pleaded guilty to a single count contained in a superseding information charging him with conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking of a child "in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1594(c) and 1591(a)(1), (b)(2)."The panel concluded that the inclusion of statutory references to both the conspiracy statute and the sections describing the object of the conspiracy does not transform the judgment into one that describes a conviction of the substantive crime. The judgment, in sum, cannot properly be read to suggest that defendant was convicted of more than one crime, nor can it properly be read to suggest that defendant stands convicted of the crime that was the object of the conspiracy. View "United States v. Warren" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for transporting a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(a) (Count 1) and traveling with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(b) (Count 2). The panel rejected defendant's evidentiary claims as meritless.The panel affirmed the sentence on Count 1, vacated the sentence on Count 2, and remanded for resentencing. The panel concluded that the district court properly applied the custodial enhancement. However, the Government concedes that the case should be remanded for resentencing on Count 2 because the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum. View "United States v. Halamek" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition in which petitioner, a federal prisoner, sought to challenge his 2014 career offender sentence. Petitioner had previously filed a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion in Ohio that was denied. Petitioner contends that, in light of intervening Supreme Court decisions, his previous convictions do not qualify him for career offender status. See Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016); Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013).Generally, a federal prisoner who seeks to challenge the legality of confinement must utilize a section 2255 motion. Under the "escape hatch" provision of section 2255(e), a federal prisoner may file a section 2241 petition only when the prisoner makes a claim of actual innocence and has not had an unobstructed procedural shot at presenting that claim. The district court held that petitioner failed to meet either of these requirements.The panel agreed with the district court that petitioner has not established a claim of actual innocence. In this case, petitioner does not dispute the validity of the conviction or that he committed the drug and firearm crimes leading to his sentence. Rather, petitioner claims actual innocence in light of Allen v. Ives, 950 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2020). The panel distinguished Allen from this case and held that petitioner cannot show that he was actually innocent of the career offender enhancement utilized during sentencing. View "Shepherd v. Unknown Party" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death in California state court, was granted habeas corpus relief on numerous claims under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The State appeals and petitioner cross-appeals the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief on his constitutional challenge to California's financial-gain special circumstance.The Ninth Circuit concluded that petitioner was deprived of effective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase by counsel's unprofessional failure to investigate and present mitigating evidence pertaining to petitioner's familial history and his mental health. The panel also concluded that petitioner has shown Strickland prejudice as a result of that deficient performance. Furthermore, the California Supreme Court's denial of petitioner's claim was an unreasonable application of Strickland and, thus, petitioner is entitled to relief under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act as to the sentence of death.The panel reversed the judgment of the district court granting the habeas petition as to petitioner's conviction, affirmed the judgment of the district court granting the petition as to petitioner's death sentence, affirmed the judgment of the district court denying the petition on petitioner's claims based on a financial-gain special circumstance, and remanded to the district court to enter an appropriate order. View "Noguera v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit withdrew its prior opinion and filed a new opinion concurrently with this order. The panel denied defendant's petition for rehearing en banc as moot.The panel reversed the district court's dismissal of an indictment charging defendant of illegal reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. The panel applied the majority's holding in its recently published opinion in United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, —F.3d —, 2021 WL 345581 (9th Cir. 2021), which held that the jurisdiction of the immigration court vests upon the filing of the Notice to Appear (NTA), even one that does not at the time inform the alien of the time, date, and location of the hearing.The panel concluded that defendant's argument is foreclosed by United States v. Palomar-Santiago, 141 S. Ct. 1615, 1622 (2021). Therefore, the panel held that defendant has failed to show that he can satisfy the section 1326(d) requirements based simply on the NTA's lack of date and time information, standing alone. Therefore, he is foreclosed from making that argument on remand. The panel explained that defendant may collaterally attack the underlying order on remand on other grounds, but only if he can meet all the requirements of section 1326(d). Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Valencia" on Justia Law