In United States v. Onyesoh, the defendant pled guilty to access device fraud and possession of stolen mail after a search uncovered expired credit card numbers along with other items. The district court applied a 12-level sentencing enhancement under the Guidelines by treating 500 expired credit card numbers as unauthorized access devices worth at least $500 each. The Ninth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded, ruling that the government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the expired numbers were usable to obtain value under the statutory definition in 18 U.S.C. § 1029(e)(1). The court reasoned that the statute requires access devices to be capable of obtaining money, goods, or services, and while usability may sometimes be self-evident, expired numbers demand affirmative proof, which was absent from the record.
This case concerned Washington's top-two primary election system under Initiative 872, in which candidates for partisan office may list a political party preference on the ballot even if not nominated or endorsed by that party. Political parties challenged the system, arguing it violated their First Amendment associational rights by creating voter confusion about party affiliation and forcing unwanted associations. The Ninth Circuit held that the ballots and related materials sufficiently inform voters that a candidate's stated preference does not imply party nomination, endorsement, or approval, and that no evidence of actual confusion existed. The court therefore concluded the system did not infringe the parties' rights. It also affirmed dismissal of related ballot access and trademark claims while reversing an order on attorney's fees reimbursement.
The case involved federal prisoner Morris Buckles appealing the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction for possession of methamphetamine and marijuana with intent to distribute. The district court had dismissed the motion as untimely because Buckles's petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court was filed late. The Ninth Circuit held that its prior order recalling the mandate did not restart the 90-day period for seeking certiorari review, confirming that both the certiorari petition and the subsequent § 2255 motion were untimely. However, the court found that alleged misinformation from the Ninth Circuit Clerk's office could support equitable tolling of the deadline, and it vacated the dismissal and remanded for further factual development on that issue.
The case involved Herberth Noel Ayala, a native of El Salvador and former military officer, who petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Ayala claimed he faced persecution from drug dealers he had arrested during his service. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petition, holding that although former military officers could potentially form a particular social group under immigration law, the evidence showed Ayala was targeted due to his specific arrests rather than his group membership. The court found substantial evidence supported the BIA's determination that the persecution was not on account of a protected ground, and thus Ayala was ineligible for relief.
The case involved a challenge by the Northwest Environmental Defense Center against Oregon state officials and timber companies, alleging that stormwater runoff from logging roads, channeled through ditches, culverts, and channels into rivers, violated the Clean Water Act by lacking National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits. The district court had dismissed the suit, finding the discharges exempt under the Silvicultural Rule. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that such channeled discharges qualify as point sources under the Act and are not exempt by the Rule or 1987 amendments, thus requiring permits. The court reasoned that the Clean Water Act's definition of point sources includes these collection and discharge systems, and Congress intended broad coverage for pollutant discharges while providing mechanisms like general permits to avoid undue burden.
The case involved Javier Dolores Gonzalez-Diaz's conviction for being found in the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Gonzalez-Diaz had lived unlawfully in the U.S. until driving into Canada, where Canadian officials detained him for further examination, determined he was inadmissible, and returned him to U.S. immigration authorities who arrested him. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction, reasoning that Gonzalez-Diaz was never legally in Canada during his brief time there and therefore remained in the United States, so the official restraint doctrine did not apply to his reentry.
