Opinion ID: 659388
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: 18 This Court reviews a district court's findings of fact in support of a disciplinary order for clear error. See Standing Comm. on Discipline of the United States Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Cal. v. Ross, 735 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1081, 105 S.Ct. 583, 83 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). The district court's choice of sanction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. at 1172. See also Re Patterson, 176 F.2d 966, 967 (9th Cir.1949); Re Claiborne, 119 F.2d 647, 650-51 (1st Cir.1941). 19 Legal and constitutional questions are reviewed de novo. See Re Complaint of McLinn, 739 F.2d 1395, 1398 (9th Cir.1984) (en banc). In cases like this raising First Amendment issues, an appellate court has an obligation to 'make an independent examination of the whole record' in order to make sure that 'the judgment does not constitute a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression.'  Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, --- U.S. ----, ----, 111 S.Ct. 2720, 2726, 115 L.Ed.2d 888 (1991) (quoting Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 499, 104 S.Ct. 1949, 1958, 80 L.Ed.2d 502 (1984)).