Source: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/enbanc/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 17:17:19+00:00

Document:
This report is provided for case identification and background information only and does not reflect the views of the court. When a case is heard or reheard en banc, the en banc court assumes jurisdiction over the entire case, see 28 U.S.C. § 46(c), regardless of the issue or issues that may have caused any member of the Court to vote to hear the case en banc. Summerlin v. Stewart, 309 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2002). In those cases where the parties have filed petitions for rehearing en banc and oppositions, you can access the pdfs by clicking the case title.
Subject Matter: Petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination that Marcelo Martinez-Cedillo’s conviction for child endangerment, in violation of California Penal Code § 273a(a), constitutes a crime of child abuse that renders him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).
Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court's imposition of a sentence of life without parole on a juvenile offender.
Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court's dismissal of plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the County of Hawaii's denial of his application for a handgun license violated his Second Amendment right to carry a loaded firearm in public for self-defense.
Subject Matter: Petition for review from the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2017 order maintaining a tolerance for (i.e. a limited allowance for the use of) the pesticide chlorpyrifos.
Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s denial of California inmate Ezzard Ellis’s habeas corpus petition in which he contended that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney held deeply racist beliefs about African Americans in general and him in particular.
Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s judgment, entered following a bench trial, in an action challenging under the First, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, two state of Arizona election practices: (1) Arizona’s requirement that in-person voters cast their ballots in their assigned precinct, which Arizona enforces by not counting ballots cast in the wrong precinct; and (2) House Bill 2023, which makes it a felony for third parties to collect early ballots from voters, unless the collector falls into one of several exceptions.
Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court's grant, on summary judgment, of qualified immunity to a police officer in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the officer used excessive force when he shot plaintiff three times following a traffic stop.
Subject Matter: Petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision denying alien minor's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention against Torture.
Subject Matter: Appeal from convictions and sentence for fraud and conspiracy in connection with a mortgage fraud scheme.
Holding: Affirming the convictions and sentence, the en banc court reaffirmed the distinction between waiver and forfeiture of sentencing challenges: a defendant waives his rights and precludes plain error review only when there is evidence that he knew of his rights at the time and nonetheless relinquished them.
Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court's order granting class certification in a nationwide class action settlement arising out of misstatements by defendants Hyundai Motor America, Inc. and its affiliate, Kia Motors, Inc., regarding the fuel efficiency of their vehicles.
Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court's denial of all but one of the claims raised in California state prisoner Jesse James Andrews's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and cross-appeal by state from the district court's grant of relief on Andrews's claim that his counsel's assistance was ineffective at the penalty phase of his capital murder trial.
Subject Matter: Petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision finding petitioner Aracely Marinelarena ineligible for cancellation of removal because she had failed to meet her burden of proof to show that her conviction was not for a disqualifying controlled substance offense.
Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s denial of the plaintiff Associations’ motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin the implementation of the City and County of San Francisco’s ordinance that would require warnings about the health effects of certain sugar-sweetened beverages on specific types of fixed advertising within San Francisco.
Holding: The en banc court reversed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction and remanded in an action challenging the City and County of San Francisco’s Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Warning Ordinance, which requires health warnings on advertisements for certain sugar-sweetened beverages.
Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s award of attorney’s fees and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act and the Supreme Court’s decision in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983).
Holding: The en banc court reversed the district court, vacated the award of attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, and remanded with instructions to recalculate the fees for the civil rights law firm that represented Dr. Rahinah Ibrahim in her successful challenge to her inclusion on the Transportation Security Administration’s "No Fly" list.

References: § 46
 v. 
 § 273
 § 1227
 § 1983
 § 2
 § 1983
 § 2254
 v.