Shin v. Holder, No. 06-73782, involved a petition for review of the BIA's order finding petitioners ineligible for 8 U.S.C. section 1182(k) relief because they never possessed valid immigrant visas and were not "otherwise admissible" within the meaning of the statute. The court of appeals granted the petition, holding that section 212(k) expressly made relief available to non-citizens, like petitioners, who were deemed inadmissible for lacking a valid immigrant visa at the time of entry and were not inadmissible for any other reason.
In US v. Navarro, No. 08-50365, the court affirmed defendant's convictions for importing heroin and possession with intent to distribute, holding that 1) any error the prosecutor may have made in defining duress was neutralized by the district judge's immediate reminder that the court's instructions controlled; and 2) even if error in the grand jury proceedings was brought to the attention of the district court prior to trial, where the motion was denied and a guilty verdict was returned, the error was rendered harmless by the verdict.
US v. Bonds, No. 09-17009, involved the government's appeal from various adverse evidentiary rulings in the Barry Bonds perjury prosecution. The court of appeals affirmed, on the grounds that 1) the district court finding properly focused on the record of untrustworthiness of trainer Greg Anderson in excluding his testimony; 2) the court correctly ruled that the government failed to show that certain statements by Anderson were authorized by Bonds, in excluding those statements; 3) there was sufficient basis in the record to support the district court's conclusion that Anderson acted as an independent contractor rather than an employee; and 4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit certain log sheets as evidence that the samples listed were Bonds'.
US v. Gamboa, No. 09-30217, involved a prosecution for cocaine base distribution. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of petitioner's petition for a writ of audita querela, holding that the district court did not err in determining that it lacked the authority to consider the merits of his petition for audita querela because the writ presented a claim regarding the legality of his sentence that was cognizable under 28 U.S.C. section 2255.