Lee v. Holder, No. 07-71193, involved a petition for review of the BIA's order removing petitioner from the U.S. The Ninth Circuit denied the petition, holding that the IJ did not err in finding petitioner ineligible for U visa interim relief, a temporary form of relief that was previously made available to immigrant victims of crime, because only U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services could grant such relief.
Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, No. 08-15889, concerned proceedings related to a November 2003 injunction based on a stipulation between plaintiff and a class of similarly situated California parolees, and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the State of California, prescribing procedures for parole revocation hearings in California. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's post-injunction order adopting the injunction-related recommendations of the court-appointed Special Master regarding the use of hearsay evidence in parole revocation hearings, based on United States v. Comito, 177 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 1999).
However, the court reversed the district court's order denying the state's motion to modify the injunction to conform to the voter promulgated statute, Cal. Penal Code section 3044, formerly California Proposition 9, holding that the order made no express determination that any aspect of the California parole revocation procedures, as modified by Proposition 9, violated federal constitutional rights, nor any determination that the injunction was necessary to remedy a constitutional violation.
Bamonte v. Mesa, No. 08-16206, concerned an action by police officers contending that a city violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to compensate the officers for the donning and doffing of their uniforms and accompanying gear. The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant on the ground that, because the officers had the option of donning and doffing their uniforms and gear at home, the district court correctly determined that these activities were not compensable pursuant to the FLSA and the Portal-to-Portal Act.
Bailey v. Hill, No. 09-35450, involved a habeas petition challenging a state court's restitution order entered after petitioner's guilty plea to kidnapping and attempted assault. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of the petition on the ground that a challenge to a restitution order by a custodial state prisoner who did not challenge the lawfulness of his custody under federal law was not sufficient for jurisdiction under the federal habeas statute 28 U.S.C. section 2254.
In US v. Maciel-Alcala, 09-50038, the court of appeals affirmed defendant's aggravated identity theft conviction, holding that the scienter element of 18 U.S.C. section 1028A required that the government prove only that defendant knew that the victim was a real person, living or deceased, when he procured a passport using the victim's birth certificate.
In US v. Xinidakis, 09-50307, the court of appeals affirmed defendant's sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release, holding that 18 U.S.C. section 3624(e) did not prohibit a district court from imposing consecutive sentences of imprisonment where a defendant violated concurrent terms of supervised release.