Aguiluz-Arellano, No. 03-73856 (5-1-06). The 9th, unsurprisingly, held that the Federal First Time Offender Act exemption for removal does not apply to a state conviction for Driving Under the Influence when it is a second conviction. FFOA does apply when a state conviction matches the federal. Here, contrary to the BIA interpretation, the Driving Under the Influence conviction may have meet the exemption requirements of the FFOA, for a first time offender, but not for a second drug conviction. As such, the petitioner is removable.

Jonah R. v. Carmona, No. 05-16391 (5-2-06). The 9th holds that juveniles must receive credit for pre-sentence custody. The 9th holds because the statute for such credit, 3585, does not unambiguously preclude such credit; that the district court erred in its legal interpretation; that the agency's (BOP's) interpretation should not be given deference because it flip-flopped for no reason, that the legislative history supports such credit, and because juveniles transferred from abroad are given such credit. Sure, juveniles are dealt with harshly under the present "Spare the rod...." mentality, but the 9th stresses how unfair it would be not to give such credit.

Congrats to AFPD Bob McWhirter from the D. Arizona (Phoenix) for the win.