Joseph Jerome Farris

In Wolfe v. Jacobson (In re Jacobson), a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee sought turnover of homestead sale proceeds, a rental property titled solely in the debtor's husband's name, and related rental income into Myrna Jacobson's bankruptcy estate. The Ninth Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding that the homestead proceeds belonged to the estate because they lost their exempt status under California law after failing to be reinvested within six months, while the rental property and income did not belong to the estate. The court reasoned that bankruptcy exemptions are determined as of the petition date but post-petition events can affect exempt status of converted proceeds. It further concluded that the rental property was the husband's separate property based on title, an interspousal transfer deed, and tracing to his inheritance, with no community property presumption applying.

propertyprocedurefamily law

The case involved Magdi Youssef, an Egyptian citizen, who was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1015(a) after he checked 'No' on a Form I-485 immigration application asking whether he had ever been arrested or convicted of a crime, despite a prior Arizona misdemeanor conviction. The district court convicted Youssef following a bench trial, holding that the statute does not require the false statement to be material as an element of the offense. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that the plain language of § 1015(a) refers to 'any false statement' without mentioning materiality, and that none of the statute's terms carried a settled common-law meaning incorporating a materiality requirement, consistent with Supreme Court precedent in United States v. Wells. The court declined to infer such a requirement and upheld the conviction without findings on materiality.

immigrationcriminal law

The case involved Robert MacLean, a Federal Air Marshal, who challenged a Transportation Security Administration order classifying a 2003 text message about cancelled missions as sensitive security information, which formed the basis for his proposed termination after he disclosed it to the press. The court denied the petition for review, upholding the TSA's order. The court reasoned that the order was a permissible agency adjudication supported by the regulations in effect in 2003, did not require notice and comment procedures as it did not affect broad classes of individuals, did not violate due process by directly depriving MacLean of liberty or property interests, and was not an impermissible retroactive action since it applied existing law to past conduct.

federal powerprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In United States v. Crandall, defendants Crandall and McDonnell were convicted of multiple counts of mail, wire, and honest services fraud for participating in a scheme to fraudulently convert apartment buildings into condominiums in Huntington Beach, California, by creating false back-dated stock cooperative documents to bypass required city permits and then selling the units to buyers. The defendants appealed their convictions, arguing that the district court should have given their proposed jury instruction on the intent-to-defraud element rather than the Ninth Circuit model instruction, and they challenged their sentences on the grounds that the court miscalculated loss under the Sentencing Guidelines by using the total sales prices of the units instead of actual economic loss. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions, holding that the model instruction correctly defined intent to defraud as an intent to deceive or cheat and that the evidence supported the verdicts. However, the court vacated the sentences and McDonnell's restitution order, reasoning that loss under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 should be measured by the victims' actual loss at the time of the fraud rather than later sales prices influenced by unrelated market changes.

criminal law

The case involved the convictions of Thomas Sullivan, Thomas Rubin, and Geoffrey Mousseau for mail, wire, and bankruptcy fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy arising from their roles at Focus Media, an advertising agency that collected funds from clients like Sears and Universal Studios to pay media stations but instead diverted millions to personal accounts and failed to make payments, leading to insolvency and bankruptcy. The defendants appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of intent, a prejudicial variance between the indictment and trial proof, improper joinder of Mousseau's trial, and prosecutorial misconduct. The Ninth Circuit affirmed all convictions, holding that the evidence supported findings of fraudulent intent through the defendants' retention and personal use of client funds despite knowing obligations to pay stations, misleading statements to creditors, and transfers violating court injunctions and bankruptcy stays.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Christina Manta's appeal of the dismissal of her habeas corpus petition challenging a magistrate judge's certification of her extradition to Greece under a bilateral treaty for two fraud charges. Greece sought her extradition as Crystalla Kyriakidou, alleging she had defrauded investors through misrepresentations in real estate and stock trading schemes. The magistrate judge found probable cause based on witness statements and other evidence, determined that Manta was the person sought, and concluded the charges satisfied dual criminality requirements. The district court dismissed the habeas petition, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the findings of identity, probable cause, and treaty compliance.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, defendant Aram Barsumyan pleaded guilty to one count of possessing device-making equipment in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(4) after attempting to obtain credit card numbers for counterfeiting. He appealed his 21-month sentence, arguing that U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10) improperly raised his offense level by six levels, and challenged two supervised release conditions: a broad prohibition on accessing or possessing computers or computer-related devices, and a requirement to report to probation if deported and reentering the country. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the sentence and the reporting condition, finding them reasonable under the advisory guidelines and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), but reversed the computer restriction as overly broad and unsupported by the record, remanding for reconsideration of that condition alone.

criminal lawprocedure