Willamette Law Online

(19 summaries)

Cassandra Cooper

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
United States v. WardCriminal Procedure: If defendant does not expressly raise a "Fifth Amendment objection" to an amended indictment, but still objects to a substantive change in jury instructions and the court does not change the instructions to accurately reflect the conduct alleged, the court will have "constructively amended the indictment by permitting the jury to convict [the defendant] based on conduct not alleged in those counts" in violation of the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights.(04-03-2014)
Arjmand v. DHSAppellate Procedure: Although 49 U.S.C. § 46110 “grants exclusive jurisdiction to the federal courts of appeals to ‘review' the ‘order[s]’ of a number of agencies, including the Transportation Security Administration (TSA),” a federal court of appeals does not have original jurisdiction when a petitioner seeks the relief of being removed from the Consolidated Terrorist Screening Database, or “watchlist,” through TSA, because the watchlist is “maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center,” and § 46110 “does not grant the circuit courts the jurisdiction to review TSC orders, the statute cannot grant jurisdiction over claims seeking removal from the [watchlist].”(03-24-2014)
Lilly v. ConAgra FoodsPreemption: When state law requirements for nutrition labeling do not "stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of [the federal law's] full purpose and objectives" the state laws cannot be preempted.(02-20-2014)
Chavez-Reyes v. HolderImmigration: In removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C)(i), a court may consider a voluntary guilty plea in determining whether the police had "'reason to believe' that Petitioner engaged or assisted in illicit trafficking of drugs" when the conviction is overturned for "a reason unrelated to the voluntariness of the guilty plea."(01-27-2014)
United States v. DharniHabeas Corpus: It is not a violation of a petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights to ask spectators and petitioner's family members to leave the courtroom during voir dire to allow seating for a jury pool.(01-03-2014)
United States v. HullabyCriminal Procedure: The government’s use of an informant with a criminal history who chose to cooperate out of self-interest in reducing future criminal liability is not “so grossly shocking and so outrageous” as to violate a defendant’s due process rights.(12-04-2013)
United States v. TerceroSentencing: Although 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) “authorizes district courts to reduce a sentence retroactively when the Commission has subsequently lowered a Sentencing range,” Congress intended that “any sentence reductions be consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission,” including U.S.S.G § 1B1.10(b)(2)(a) which prohibits courts “from reducing a defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)…to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range.”(10-31-2013)
Hunton v. SinclairHabeas Corpus: Because there is no constitutional right to an attorney in state post-conviction relief proceedings, a defendant’s Brady claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails unless “counsel was ineffective and the claim could not be raised earlier.”(10-11-2013)
United States v. BahrCriminal Procedure: It is a violation of a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to consider compelled statements in determining “a sentence in a later, unrelated criminal proceeding.” (09-16-2013)
United States v. GonzalezSentencing: When calculating a criminal history score, because U.S.S.G. 4A1.2(a) is a bright-line rule, two sentences cannot count as one when they were imposed on separate days, regardless of their previously scheduled dates. Deportation does not automatically end a parole sentence under California state law.(09-10-2013)
Richards v. Ernst & Young, LLPArbitration: Because “waiver of a contractual right to arbitration is not favored,” and, therefore, “any party arguing waiver of arbitration bears a heavy burden of proof,” including the establishment of prejudice as a result of an alleged delay in the assertion of arbitration rights.(08-21-2013)
Urbino v. Orkin Servs. of California, Inc.Civil Procedure: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), the amount in controversy cannot be aggregated by multiple plaintiffs who “assert separate and distinct claims” unless the claims “unite to enforce a single title or right in which they have a common and undivided interest,” and the source of that interest is “derived from rights that they hold in group status.” (08-13-2013)
In re: PerleBankruptcy Law: A creditor does not have notice or actual knowledge of its debtor's bankruptcy sufficient to meet the filing exception under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(3) and (a)(6) if the creditor's lawyer, who no longer represents the creditor in the matter, is made aware of the bankruptcy after his representation of a different creditor.(08-02-2013)
US v. Marcelino Aguilar-ReyesCriminal Procedure: Barring circumstances expressly excepted by law, a defendant must be present at a resentencing hearing regardless of whether it is the defendant or the government who is entitled to the resentencing.(07-18-2013)
Busk v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc.Labor Law: The Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class action opt-out mechanism does not conflict with the Fair Labor Standards Act opt-in mechanism and therefore state law claims must not be dismissed; additionally anti-theft security checks are “integral and indispensable” to the warehouse employees’ duties and must be compensated.(04-12-2013)
In re: The Morning Star Packing, Co.Remedies: Under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (“MVRA”), crime victims may file for restitution regardless of the civil remedies available to the victim or the defendant’s economic circumstances, unless determining restitution would “complicate or prolong the sentencing process” using a balancing test that the “need to provide restitution…is outweighed by the burden on the sentencing process.”(03-29-2013)
Gasparyan v. HolderImmigration: When considering the "extraordinary circumstances" exception of an immigration appeal denial of asylum based on a one-year timeline expiration, the immigration law judge must determine that an extraordinary circumstance existed. Only then must the immigration judge use the three-factor test laid out in 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5) that determines "whether extraordinary circumstances may excuse an untimely asylum application."(02-20-2013)
Gasparyan v. HolderImmigration: When considering the "extraordinary circumstances" exception of an immigration appeal denial of asylum based on a one-year timeline expiration, the immigration law judge must determine that an extraordinary circumstance existed. Only then must the immigration judge use the three-factor test laid out in 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5) that determines "whether extraordinary circumstances may excuse an untimely asylum application."(02-20-2013)
Mattel v. MGA EntertainmentCivil Procedure: Where a counterclaim is based on chicanery by the opposing party’s employees, who were not involved with the facts of the original claim, the counterclaim is not compulsory. (01-24-2013)