Taylor Anderson

9th Circuit Court of Appeals (13 summaries)

Graves v. McEwen

Although filing an Anders brief is not constitutionally mandated in a habeas appeal when appointed counsel seeks to withdraw, appellate rules contemplate such a procedure.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

United States v. Lira

In accordance with Alleyne v. United States, facts that increase mandatory minimum sentences must be submitted to the jury and established beyond a reasonable doubt; a finding by the preponderance of the evidence by the district court that a firearm had been discharged during and in relation to or in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense is not sufficient, and the sentence must be reexamined.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

United States v. Clement

In accordance with United States v. Augustine, mandatory minimums in the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 ("FSA") do not apply to defendants sentenced before the FSA was enacted; however, since Augustine was decided, an inter-circuit split has emerged.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Veltmann-Barragan v. Holder

Aliens who are removable, but not yet subject to a removal order, are no longer “in custody” for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and therefore lack jurisdiction for a habeas corpus petition.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

United States v. Reyes-Ceja

A deportee “found in” the United States by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, while serving a sentence on an unrelated crime, may have his sentence enhanced pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines for being under a criminal justice sentence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

County of Sonoma v. FHFA

A directive issued by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac prohibiting the enterprises from purchasing assets FHFA deems risky is an unreviewable action by FHFA as a conservator and not as a regulator, thus formal rulemaking proceedings, including notice-and-comment are not required.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Knight v. Ahlin

The Younger doctrine, of preventing a court from interfering with a state proceeding, does not apply where the proceedings have been postponed pending a decision by the federal court, since it does not constitute an "ongoing proceeding."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Hartmann v. California Dep't of Corrections

To establish a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, a plaintiff-inmate who practices a non-traditional religion must plead sufficient facts showing that prison officials denied her a “reasonable opportunity” to freely exercise her faith comparable to inmates “adhering to conventional religious precepts.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

United States v. Doe

When asserting the affirmative defense of public authority, the defendant bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence where the crime requires that the defendant acted “knowingly.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Jayne v. Sherman

In preparing an Environmental Impact Statement, the Forest Service did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner when considering commitments by a forest supervisor to protect endangered species after the adoption of a new regulation affecting wilderness management.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Martinez v. Napolitano

8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) prohibits Administrative Procedure Act claims that indirectly challenge the removal of an alien since the petition for review process is the exclusive means to challenge an order of removal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc.

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a claim against a private casino is not frivolous where the casino acted under color of state law by arresting the plaintiff for trespass, because the casino could be considered a state actor.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

Stratton v. Buck

Pro se prisoner plaintiffs have a substantial right to notice on a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies when the district court is considering matters outside the pleadings; a plaintiff is entitled to notice similar to that required by Rand on motions for summary judgment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure