CRS Recovery, Inc. v. Laxton, No. 08-17306, involved an action alleging theft of Internet domain names. The court of appeals vacated summary judgment for plaintiffs, on the grounds that: 1) California law applied because Virginia did not have an interest in its law applying given how the parties were situated; 2) the district court begged the factual question as to whether plaintiffs lost the domain name at issue due to theft or fraud in characterizing defendant's control of the name as a "seizure" when the circumstances of the transfer were unclear; and 3) further factual development was necessary regarding the precise circumstances through which plaintiff lost control of the domain names.
In US v. Valencia-Barragan, No. 09-50018, the court of appeals affirmed defendant's sentence for attempted reentry into the U.S., on the grounds that 1) a conviction under Wash. Rev. Code section 9A.44.076(1) categorically constituted "sexual abuse of a minor" and was therefore a crime of violence warranting a sixteen-level increase; and 2) the district court did not impose a procedurally or substantively unreasonable sentence.