Case law

Hector Ramirez v. Loretta E. Lynch

810 F.3d 1127 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 20, 2016

However, even were we to consider it, section 12022.7(a) does not meet the definition of a crime of violence either, as it has clearly been applied to defendants who committed crimes recklessly or negligently. … Section 12022.7(a) thus clearly falls outside the definition of “crime of violence.”  RAMIREZ V.

United States v. Thomas Kuzma

967 F.3d 959 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 3, 2020

We concluded that, “absent proof of original design or redesign for use as a weapon,” subjective “[i]ntent is a necessary element” and that the defendant’s intent had “not been established.” 833 F.2d at 839 (emphasis added … Kuzma does not contest that Exhibit 12 had enough of the core features of a firearm to qualify as a “frame or receiver.”

Arnold Davis v. Guam

932 F.3d 822 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 29, 2019

It does not qualify the meaning of “vote” in any way. … Just as clearly the Amendment excludes social or business clubs.” Id. at 468–69.

McKenzy Alfred v. Merrick Garland

13 F.4th 980 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 22, 2021

In fact, quite the opposite, he very clearly acted alone. … Yet the exact same conduct may qualify as an aggravated felony in a neighboring state.

Thomas Cline Timothy Irving Keith Riney Dennis Trammell Each on His Own Behalf and on Behalf of All the Employees Similarly Situated v. The Industrial Maintenance Engineering & Contracting Co. George R. Beltz, Individually and in His Official Capacity as International President of the I.U.P.I.W. And as a Fiduciary Pamela Barlow, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Secretary-Treasurer of the I.U.P.I.W. And as a Fiduciary Joe Beltz, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Vice President of the I.U.P.I.W. And as a Fiduciary Thomas Walsh, Individually and in His Capacity as Fiduciary Maurice Lampley, Individually and in His Capacity as Fiduciary John Delaney, Individually and in His Capacity as a Fiduciary Harold Johnson, Individually and in His Capacity as a Fiduciary Robert Ortega, Individually and in His Capacity as a Fiduciary Geoffrey Beltz, Individually and in His Capacity as a Fiduciary Oak Tree Administrators, Inc. Erisa, Regulated Employee Benefit Plan International Union of Petroleum & Industrial Workers Canadian Benefit Fund Great West Life and Annuity Co., the Industrial Maintenance Engineering & Contracting Co Geoffrey Beltz, Individually and in His Capacity as a Fiduciary Oak Tree Administrators, Inc., Erisa, Regulated Employee Benefit Plan Great West Life & Annuity Co., and George R. Beltz, Individually and in His Official Capacity as International President of the I.U.P.I.W. And as a Fiduciary Pamela Barlow, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Secretary-Treasurer of the I.U.P.I.W. And as a Fiduciary Joe Beltz, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Vice President of the I.U.P.I.W. And as a Fiduciary Thomas Walsh, Individually and in His Capacity as Fiduciary Maurice Lampley, Individually and in His Capacity as Fiduciary John Delaney, Individually and in His Capacity as a Fiduciary Harold Johnson, Individually and in His Capacity as a Fiduciary Robert Ortega, Individually and in His Capacity as a Fiduciary International Union of Petroleum & Industrial Workers Canadian Benefit Fund Great West Life and Annuity Co. v. Thomas Cline Timothy Irving Keith Riney Dennis Trammell, Thomas Cline Timothy Irving Keith Riney Dennis Trammell, Plaintiffsappellees v. The Industrial Maintenance Engineering & Contracting Co George R. Beltz, Individually and in His Official Capacity as International President of the I.U.P.I.W. And as a Fiduciary Pamela Barlow, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Secretary-Treasurer of the I.U.P.I.W. And as a Fiduciary Joe Beltz, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Vice President of the I.U.P.I.W. And as a Fiduciary Thomas Walsh, Individually and in His Capacity as Fiduciary Maurice Lampley, Individually and in His Capacity as Fiduciary John Delaney, Individually and in His Capacity as Fiduciary, Thomas Cline Timothy Irving Keith Riney Dennis Trammell v. The Industrial Maintenance Engineering & Contracting Co., and Great West Life and Annuity Co.

200 F.3d 1223 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 11, 2000

That document continued to allege the various ERISA violations and for the first time characterized the subject plan as not IRA qualified. … Neither Appellants' briefs nor the Record reveal any evidence contradicting the inference that the Plan qualifies under I.R.C.

Taylor v. Lamarque

208 F. App'x 574 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 30, 2006

that the state court’s denial of his request was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). … Prior to sentencing, a jury found that Taylor had suffered two prior "strike” convictions within the meaning of California’s Three Strikes law and qualified for three prison term enhancements.

United States v. Romero-Martinez

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 24, 2006

The district court’s instruction that “ ‘[o]bliterated’ means to have removed completely or erased” easily falls within the definition established by Carter. … The removal of the serial numbers on the slide and barrel clearly made the weapon more difficult to trace. Under Carter, this is sufficient to qualify for the enhancement.

Eva Rehner v. Baxter Rice, Individually and as Director of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the State of California, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. State of Washington, the Tulalip Tribes of Washington, an Indian Tribe v. State of Washington

678 F.2d 1340 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 8, 1982

It did not, however, reach the issue of tribal sovereign immunity. … The Indian tribe voluntarily intervened in the original action, which resembled an equitable action in rem, to establish and to protect its treaty fishing rights.

Anna Galaza v. Alejandro Mayorkas

61 F.4th 669 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 28, 2023

The Rehabilitation Act protects qualified individuals with disabilities from being subjected to discrimination under activity conducted by any Executive agency because of his or her disability. 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). … Alpine Ridge Grp., 508 U.S. 10, 18 (1993) (“[I]n construing statutes, the use of such a ‘notwithstanding’ clause clearly signals the drafter’s intention that the provisions of the ‘notwithstanding’ section override conflicting

United States v. Rufino Peralta-Sanchez

847 F.3d 1124 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 7, 2017

The expedited removal process is intended to allow the government to exclude quickly those aliens found at or near the border who are clearly inadmissible— those who have no legal entry documents and who have established … Thus, the first and third factors clearly weigh against him.

United States v. Cortrayer Zone

403 F.3d 1101 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 18, 2005

Even if Zone could prove this hypothesis true through testimonial or documentary evidence, he would not qualify for relief under the Bartkus exception. … Although we are dealing here with Zone’s discovery request rather than his motion to dismiss, the two are clearly related: The purpose of the discovery request is to provide a basis for the motion to dismiss.

96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2382, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3959 United States of America v. Antonio Magana-Guerrero, United States of America v. Juana Santana-Molina

80 F.3d 398 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 8, 1996

Compare U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, app. note 3(b) (attempting to suborn perjury qualifies); app. note 3(c) (attempting to produce a false document during an official investigation or judicial proceeding qualifies); app. note 3(f) … Had the district court accepted their story, they would neither have avoided criminal liability nor established a defense to the crime. Id. at 80 .

United States v. Aguilera-Rios

769 F.3d 626 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 17, 2014

The Court therefore held that “to qualify as an aggravated felony, a conviction ... must necessarily establish” “the presence ... of certain factors that are not themselves elements of the crime.” Id. … [i]nstead, the burden is on the defendant to show that he qualifies” for misdemeanor treatment under § 841(b)(4). 133 S.Ct. at 1688 .

UFO Chuting of Hawaii, Inc. v. Smith

508 F.3d 1189 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 28, 2007

Because UFO does not qualify as a “prevailing party,” the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying UFO’s motion for attorney’s fees. … Rather, the Court reaffirmed established case law requiring a prevailing party to obtain a direct and substantial benefit.

Fred Berre Douglas v. Jeanne S. Woodford, Warden, of Rswl California State Prison at San Quentin

316 F.3d 1079 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 24, 2003

This finding is not clearly erroneous. … On these facts, we cannot say the district court clearly erred when it determined that Douglas would not submit to further psychological testing.

Obie Wilson Stapleton v. United States

260 F.2d 415 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 22, 1958

Indictments are now immune from the technical challenges permitted at common law. … This instruction, which clearly and succinctly sets forth all of the essential elements of the crime of grand larceny which the Government was required to establish, strengthens our firm belief that the appellant was not

Kevin Butler v. Douglas County

457 F. App'x 674 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 3, 2011

Summary judgment as to Brown is affirmed on the basis of qualified immunity. … Even if Brown violated Appellants’ constitutional rights by retaliating against their request for the return of their medical marijuana, he enjoys qualified immunity if the right violated was not clearly established at

National Ass'n of Home Builders v. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

627 F.3d 730 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 7, 2010

But even if section 6.2, standing alone, could qualify as an indirect source review program, section 6.1.1.1 clearly does not. … Since the federal government alone may establish specific emissions standards for particular vehicles, the local rule could not establish a “standard” requiring fleet operators to buy vehicles with certain emissions characteristics

Hacienda La Puente Unified School District Of Los Angeles v. William Honig

976 F.2d 487 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 28, 1992

Furthermore, other provisions of California law clearly provide B.C. with the avenue he has pursued. See Cal. … Because the requirements of California's Tort Claims Act implicate principles of sovereign immunity, the School District may well be correct. See, e.g., Williams v.

Peterson v. California

604 F.3d 1166 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 17, 2010

Washing- ton, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), which Peterson contends “clearly applied the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation of wit- nesses to pre-trial proceedings.” … For example, Crawford clearly held that ex parte testimony at a preliminary hearing would qualify as “testimo- nial” and would therefore not be allowed at trial under the Confrontation Clause unless the witness was unavailable