1.  US v. Lonich, No. 18-10298 (1-10-22)(Bress w/Hurwitz & Corker). In a complex fraud appeal, the 9th finds no Sixth Amendment speedy trial violations. The issue arose from a superseding indictment in 2016 that extended charges originally filed in 2014. The 9th avoided the constitutional “spillover” challenge by concluding no Speedy Trial violation occurred. The 9th also rejected the jury instructions challenge to “knowingly” used in the money laundering instruction. Using “knowingly” went to transactional acts (general intent) and not to the specific intent of knowledge of proceeds. The 9th vacated and remanded the sentence because the record did not support the enhancement for failure of the financial institution which extended the loans.

The decision is here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/01/10/18-10298.pdf

2.    US v. Buck, No. 18-17271 (1-11-22)(Bress w/Callahan & Gilman). In a habeas, the 9th holds that assaulting a mail carrier with intent to steal mail, and placing the carrier’s life in jeopardy by using a dangerous weapon, is categorically a crime of violence. It requires intentional wrongdoing. It qualifies as a crime of violence under 924(c)(3)(A).

The decision is here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/01/11/18-17271.pdf

3. US v. Ponce, No. 21-30009 (2-11-22)(Christen w/McKeown & Bade). The 9th vacates the denial of a petition for early termination of SR. The district court used the incorrect standard of “exceptional or extraordinary circumstances.” This is error. The correct standard allows far greater discretion, using phrases like “conduct of the defendant” and “in the interests of justice.” The 9th’s standard is correctly set forth in US v. Emmett, 749 F.3D 817 (9th Cir. 2014).

Congrats to AFPD Angela Chang of the Fed Def Services of Idaho.

The decision is here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/01/11/21-30009.pdf