Danielle Ross

9th Circuit Court of Appeals (52 summaries)

United States v. Hornbuckle

Impermissible double counting during sentencing occurs when a court applies an enhancement for a necessary element of the underlying conviction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

In re Tristar Esperanza Properties

Under 11 U.S.C. § 510(b), a claim for a monetary judgment against a debtor must be subordinated to senior claims if it is for damages arising from, or rescission of, the purchase or sale of a security of the debtor.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

United States v. Richter

As long as a defendant has an opportunity to present a closing argument, counsel’s conduct can act as an implicit waiver of that right.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Fries

Where the nature of criminal acts have the potential to cause suffering to many people, the federal government has the authority to prosecute pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 229(a)

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Daire v. Lattimore

When a defendant brings an ineffective assistance of counsel claim alleging an evidentiary omission, the court must consider all the relevant evidence that could have been presented, but cannot second-guess sound trial strategy.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports

Even if a public accommodation has an obstruction, the facility may still be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and afford those individuals with disabilities full and equal access if the obstruction is only isolated and temporary.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

Weiland v. American Airlines

The Federal Aviation Administration’s Age 60 Rule is not abrogated by the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act’s 49 U.S.C. § 44729(e)(1)(A) exception if the pilot turned 60 prior to its enactment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Ezell v. United States

In order to establish a prima facie case, the successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition must announce a new rule of constitutional law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

United States v. Zamudio

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1326, no prejudice arises if the defendant cannot collaterally attack the underlying removal proceeding, and the five-year statute of limitations does not begin to run until the government has knowledge of the defendant’s illegal presence in the United States.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Gladding

When an individual has pleaded guilty, the burden falls on the government to demonstrate a legitimate reason for retaining the individuals property.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd

The party an injunction is issued upon can be held in contempt if they aid and abet another party in performing acts prohibited by the injunction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Alvarez v. Tracy

A defendant alleging violations of the Indian Civil Rights Act must exhaust tribal remedies before a federal court will exercise jurisdiction over the claim.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

United States v. Prince

For purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act, attempted robbery qualifies as a violent felony because it presents “a serious potential risk of physical injury to another” and it possesses similar risks to that of burglary, in degree and in kind.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Martinez

If a defendant is convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and has three prior violent felony convictions, a fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence will be imposed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Raya-Vaca

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1326, a conviction of illegal reentry into the United States requires the Government to establish that the defendant left the United States under order of exclusion, deportation, or removal, and then illegally reentered; in addition the Government must not violate the defendant’s due process rights or prejudice the defendant in convicting him.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Castro-Ponce

A perjury will only be deemed an obstruction of justice if the district court finds that the defendant gave, with willful intent, false testimony on a material matter.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Velasquez-Escovar v. Holder

As long as aliens provide a current address to the government and notify the government when they move, they are entitled to notice for a removal hearing before they can be removed from the United States.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

United States v. Garcia

The Commerce Clause jurisdictional requirements for an 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) conviction are satisfied, so long as the building and vehicle damaged are used in, or affect interstate commerce.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Alaska Cmty. Action v. Aurora

General Permits issued under the Environmental Protection Agency’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System authorize an exclusive list of allowable non-stormwater discharges, and non-stormwater coal discharges are not included in that list, therefore they are prohibited by the plain terms of the General Permits.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Cruz v. City of Anaheim

A judge must examine all evidence in the record, including circumstantial evidence, in determining the consistency and credibility of a police officer’s story.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Martinez v. Aero Caribbean

General personal jurisdiction may be exercised over a corporation only when its contacts “render it essentially at home” in the state.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

United States v. Cyr

Forfeiture does not violate the Excessive Fines clause of the United States Constitution as long as the forfeiture is not grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant’s offense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Loos v. Immersion Corp.

In a securities fraud claim, the mere announcement by a company of an internal investigation is not sufficient to establish the element of loss causation

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

United States v. Stewart

For purposes of defining and sentencing career offenders, the ambiguous language of 28 U.S.C. § 994(h) includes not only prior federal drug convictions, but also prior drug convictions where the conduct could have been charged federally.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Daniels

According to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(E), a court is required to personally address a defendant giving the defendant a chance to present mitigating information before imposing a sentence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Liera-Morales

An ongoing hostage situation is an emergency situation for the purposes of determining whether statements made during police interrogations are nontestimonial.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Amado v. Gonzalez

Under Brady v. Maryland, prosecutors must disclose favorable and material evidence to the defense; and, in making a Brady claim, the defense must show that the evidence is both newly-discovered and that the exercise of due diligence would not have uncovered the evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Tourgeman v. Collins Financial Servs.

A debt collector cannot present misleading information that is material in the collection of their debt; and, under section 1692e of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a debt collector is liable if the least sophisticated debtor would be misled by a communication.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

Cohen v. City of Culver City

When a facility is already in compliance with the ADA but disabled access has been eliminated, 28 C.F.R. § 35.151 applies rather than 28 C.F.R. § 35.150 for purposes of determining whether a person has been denied the benefits of a public entity’s services.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

United States v. Ezeta

An indictment for fraud under 20 U.S.C. § 1097(a) does not require the government to prove that the defendant personally received or exercised control over funds.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Cabrera-Perez

An alien is only eligible for voluntary departure if he has not committed a crime of violence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Progressive Gulf Ins. Co. v. Faehnrich

A choice-of-law provision in automobile insurance contracts does not violate Nevada public policy.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

Frost v. Van Boening

A trial court infringes on a defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when it precludes defense counsel from making a legitimate defense theory to the jury.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

United States v. Sheldon

Under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) the Government does not need to prove a defendant’s knowledge concerning the interstate commerce travel of materials used in the production of child pornography.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Peabody Coal v. OWCP

The Administrative Procedure Act is not violated when an ALJ relies on the regulatory preamble to the Black Lung Benefits Act when using it to understand medical issues and his award determination is based on supporting substantial evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

United States v. Morris

In calculating loss associated with mortgage fraud cases, courts should use the following two steps set forth under U.S.S.G. §2B1.1(b): (1) calculate the greater of actual or intended loss by using a reasonable foreseeability analysis and (2) deducting from the actual or intended loss the value of any collateral recovered or recoverable by the creditor.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Montoya v. Holder

An immigrant has no vested right in a retroactivity claim if their actions have not substantially furthered their expectation of relief.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Rea v. Michaels Stores

The reviewing court should apply the clearly erroneous standard of review when reviewing the district court’s determination of whether removal jurisdiction exists.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Carter v. Caleb Brett LLC

When a district court significantly reduces a fee award, it must explain with specificity its reasons for the reduction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

United States v. Davis

Section 1B1.10(b) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual does not violate the separation of powers doctrine or exceed the Commission's authority.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Kalitta Air v. Cent. Texas Airborne Sys.

28 U.S.C. § 1920 does not allow the district court to award costs for pro hac vice fees as taxable costs, nor does it authorize costs of deposition editing and synchronizing, but the district court is allowed to award costs for graphics consultants.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

Smith v. Oregon Board of Parole

A federal habeas claim is not procedurally defaulted even when an objection is not raised during trial, if the claim is rejected without any discussion or citation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

James v. Ryan

Although Johnson v. Williams grants state courts “the benefit of the doubt” when there is unclear reasoning for its holding, federal courts are not required to disregard a state court’s clear explanation of its own decision to deny the claim based solely on state procedural grounds.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

United States v. Nickerson

In order to warrant the dismissal of Class B misdemeanor charges based on outrageous government conduct, there must be a nexus between the conduct and the criminal proceeding at issue; the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(d)(2) and 3162, does not apply to Class B misdemeanors.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Schurz v. Ryan

In the absence of “new” mitigating evidence showing it was likely a jury would have reached a different verdict, a petitioner cannot show any prejudice from alleged ineffective assistance.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Zhao v. Holder

The Board of Immigration Appeals abuses its discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a motion to reopen an application for asylum when it applies an incorrect legal standard and does not adequately consider the substantial evidence submitted.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

United States v. King

A felon's Fourth Amendment right is not violated by a suspicionless search when the felon has already agreed to a suspicionless search condition as part of their probation agreement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Flores-Cordero

In Arizona, a conviction for resisting arrest does not authorize a sixteen-level sentencing increase because it is not categorically a crime of violence, and it is only appropriate to apply a modified categorical approach when a prior conviction is divisible.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

United States v. Huizar-Velazquez

A court should apply Sentencing Guideline § 2T3.1 regulating smuggling rather than Sentencing Guideline § 2C1.1 regulating bribery when a defendant is guilty of conspiring to evade import duties.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Macias-Carreon v. Holder

Possession of marijuana in violation of Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11359 is categorically a crime "relating to a controlled substance" for immigration purposes.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

United States v. Sivilla

Government destruction of evidence requires bad faith for dismissal as a constitutional violation, but bad faith is not required for a remedial jury instruction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Romero-Ochoa v. Holder

The presumption of a lack of “good moral character” for an alien who has been incarcerated for more than six months is a reasonable restriction which Congress may impose and does not violate Equal Protection principles.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration