Reversed and remanded for a new trial, A guide to retrial
NINTH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
-Antitrust and Trade Regulation-
Summary judgment in state court action, concluding that there was insufficient evidence presented by plaintiffs to allow a reasonable juror to find a conspiracy to limit supply and raise prices among several gasoline companies, precluded plaintiff’s antitrust claims under the Sherman Act, and district court did not err in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss.
William O. Gilley Enterprises, Inc. v. Atlantic Richfield Company – filed December 2, 2009
Cite as 06-56059
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1209%2F06-56059
-Criminal Law and Procedure-
District court properly gave credence to the proceedings of that country and considered only the elapsed time between the date on which the crime occurred and the date foreign authority issued warrant for defendant’s arrest,
Magistrate’s finding of probable cause to extradite defendant on murder charge was not clearly erroneous where sworn statements of eyewitnesses provided ample competent evidence that defendant likely shot and killed victim.
Appellate court will not reweigh evidence on review of magistrate’s factual findings in an extradition case.
Crotte Sainez v. Venables – filed December 2, 2009
Cite as 08-56398
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1209%2F08-56398
-Criminal Law and Procedure-
District court erred in rejecting defendant’s guilty plea to firearm charge–which defendant made in exchange for dropping charges relating to his involvement in smuggling undocumented aliens into the United States and holding them for ransom in a stash house–where court failed to state a reason for rejection.
United States v. Mancinas-Flores – filed December 2, 2009
Cite as 08-10094
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1209%2F08-10094
-Criminal Law and Procedure-
District court’s adoption of a procedure for the taking of pleas en masse to accommodate the enormous number of prosecutions for illegal entry into the United States violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,
“address the defendant personally”
and determine that defendant understood certain specified rights, risks, and consequences,
United States v. Roblero-Solis – filed December 2, 2009
Cite as 08-10396
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1209%2F08-10396
-Environmental Law-
and that certain regulations of the Fish and Wildlife Service threatened imminent, concrete harm to these interests by destroying polar bears and walrus in that specific region, and that those regulations continued to be implemented had standing to challenge the legality of the regulations.
Where the United States Fish and Wildlife Service promulgated five-year regulations under Marine Mammal Protection Act Sec. 101(a)(5) that permit non-lethal “take” of polar bears and Pacific walrus by oil and gas activities in and along the Beaufort Sea on the Northern Coast of Alaska, conditioned upon service’s issuance of a “letter of authorization” to an individual oil and gas operator, facial challenge to the regulations was ripe, and plaintiffs were not required to challenge individual LOAS.
erm “gas and oil exploration, exploration, and production activities” was not too broad to qualify as a specified activity as to which service may allow incidental take of wildlife under MMPA.
Service’s finding that the taking of wildlife pursuant to regulations
would have a negligible environmental impact was not arbitrary and capricious
“no significant impact” finding under National Environmental Policy Act was not arbitrary and capricious.
NEPA did not require service to prepare environmental impact statement,
where service relied on reasonable predictions based on prior data.
Center for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne – filed December 2, 2009
Cite as 08-35402
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1209%2F08-35402
-Immigration Law-
Immigration judge denied petitioner
“would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship”
To petitioner’s four-year-old child, who was a U.S. citizen, and denied request for a continuance, prejudicing petitioner’s ability to present evidence in support of her application for cancellation of removal.
Rendon v. Holder – filed December 2, 2009