Tuesday, June 15, 2010

U.S. v. Villavicencio-Burruel, No. 09-50204 (6-14-10) (Gould joined by Canby and Ikuta). The 9th affirms a 1326 conviction in an appeal that raised the issue of exhaustion of the removal proceedings. The defendant had not waived his right to an appeal at the removal hearing; indeed, he twice said he was not waiving his appeal. However, neither his lawyer nor he pursued the appeal. This failure, argued the defendant here, meant that IAC occurred, and that exhaustion could be excused. The 9th disagreed, finding instead that he had known of his right, reserved it, and his failure to pursue meant that the administrative remedy was unexhausted, and thus not reviewable. The 9th reversed the district court's finding that the offense of making criminal threats under Calif. Penal Code 422 was not a categorical crime of violence because it was too broad (taking in crimes against property). The 9th held that such threats were violent, against person and property,and so the offense was considered a crime of violence.

U.S. v. O'Donnell, No. 09-50296 (6-14-10) (Fisher with Goodwin and Canby). In campaign finance, it is illegal under 2 U.S.C. 441(f) to give money in another person's name. The 9th interprets this to include a person giving money to another person to give in that person's name, a so-called straw donor.


Post a Comment

<< Home