The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. CABACCANG, No. 05-10352, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of Procter Hug, Jr., A. Wallace Tashima, and William A. Fletcher, Circuit Judges.

TASHIMA, Circuit Judge:
This appeal comes to us following our remand to the district court for resentencing. Roy Toves Cabaccang, James Toves Cabaccang, and Richard Toves Cabaccang were convicted on numerous charges relating to a drug ring that involved the shipment of methamphetamine from California to Guam and its distribution in Guam. We affirmed their con . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in CONNECTICUT GENERAL v. ROBINSON, No. 04-55859, a federal appeal. The panel consisted of Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Andrew J. Kleinfeld, and Barry G. Silverman, Circuit Judges.

KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge:
The only issue raised in this case is the appropriateness of a discovery sanction that terminated the case and imposed judgment. Facts Harrell Robinson, M.D., and Providence Ambulatory Surgery Center, Inc. were part of a huge, lucrative, fraudulent scheme to solicit patients, perform surgeries, and submit fraudulent billings to insurance companies. We described the scheme in a related appeal: The background of this case is long and colorful. Plaintiffs — branches of four major medical insurance companies — filed a complaint in 1999 against dozens of individuals involved in an alleged insurance fraud scheme at ten outpatient surgery clinics in Southern California. The alleged scheme involved surgeons who would perform elective cosmetic surgeries and then submit fraudulent bills and medical records to plaintiffs, assigning bogus diagnoses and misrepresenting the surgeries performed. For example, various facial cosmetic surgeries were documented and billed as procedures to correct deviated septums; breast implants were billed as biopsies; tummy tucks became hernia or gynecological surgeries. The fraud was aided by patient recruiters who sought patients, primarily Asian-American women, from all over the country and were paid a fee per patient. . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in WINTERROWD v. NELSON, No. 04-35855, a civil rights appeal. The panel consisted of Alex Kozinski, Marsha S. Berzon and Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judges.

KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge:
We consider a claim of qualified immunity for the use of force during an ordinary traffic stop. Facts Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2d wasn’t weaving across the road when the Alaska State Troopers pulled him over. He wasn’t speeding. He didn’t even coast through a stop sign. He was pulled over because the troopers suspected his plates were invalid. As is typical in such circumstances, the troopers who pulled him over–Brad L. Nelson, John R. Cyr, Jorge A. Santiago, and Robert M. Baty–asked Winterrowd to produce his driver’s license and registration. Winterrowd was unable to produce valid registration. The troopers then ordered him out of his vehicle. Because they intended to speak with him inside a patrol car, they attempted to perform a routine pat-down for officer safety. As Winterrowd faced the police car, Nelson ordered him to put his hands behind his back. Nelson saw no signs of a weapon, and Winterrowd offered no physical threat to the officers. Instead, Winterrowd explained that he could not put his hands behind his back because he had a shoulder injury. According to Winterrowd, the officers responded by forcing. . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. IHNATENKO, No. 05-50150, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of A. Wallace Tashima, Raymond C. Fisher, and Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judges.

TALLMAN, Circuit Judge:
Mykola Ihnatenko and Mykhailo Yurchenko appeal their convictions for conspiracy to possess cocaine aboard a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in violation of 46 U.S.C. app. § 1903(a) and (j) and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute aboard a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in violation of 46 U.S.C. app. § 1903(a), (c)(1)(C), and (f). Ihnatenko, the vessel engineer in charge of fuel systems and refrigeration, and Yurchenko, the third mate machinist aboard the smuggling vessel, were codefendants tried separately from the defendants whose convictions we upheld in United States v. Zakharov, 468 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2006), and United States v. Savchenko, No. 04. . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in MILLER v. FARMERS INSURANCE, No. 05-35080, a federal appeal. The panel consisted of Barry G. Silverman and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges, and John S. Rhoades, Sr., District Judge.

SILVERMAN, Circuit Judge:
For more than 50 years, the Department of Labor has considered claims adjusters exempt from the Fair Labor Standard Act’s overtime requirement. In 2004, the DOL promulgated 29 C.F.R. § 541.203, which it viewed as “consistent with” existing law. Section 541.203 exempts claims adjusters if they perform activities such as interviewing witnesses, making recommendations regarding coverage and value of claims, determining fault and negotiating settlements. In this case, the plaintiffs are nearly 2,000 former and current claims adjusters who handle, respectively, automobile damage claims, non-automobile property damage claims, personal injury claims and various combinations of these. They . . .

The Opinion filed October 26, 2006, slip op. 17921, and appearing at 466 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2006), is amended as follows:
1. At slip op. 17934, footnote 4, second paragraph, lines 7 & 9, insert “under the FLSA” after “the claims adjusters in this case are exempt” and “under the statute” after “liquidated damages.” 2. At slip op. 17939, replace citation at the end of the paragraph labeled headnote [6] with “Cheatham v. Allstate Ins. Co., 465 F.3d 578, 586 (5th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).” 3. At slip op. 17941, line 3, delete “(Emphasis added.)” at end of sentence and replace with the following: (Quoting DOL Wage & Hour Div. Op. Ltr., at 3 (Nov. 19, 2002) (”If an adjuster erroneously recommends that coverage should be denied, even on a claim of relatively low value, the insurance company may be liable for significant extra contractual damages for bad faith denial of the claim.”).) . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in PERFECT 10, INC. v. CCBILL LLC, No. 04-57143, a federal appeal. The panel consisted of Stephen Reinhardt, Alex Kozinski, Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges.

MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judge:
Perfect 10, the publisher of an adult entertainment magazine and the owner of the subscription website perfect10.com, alleges that CCBill and CWIE violated copyright, trademark, and state unfair competition, false advertising and right of publicity laws by providing services to websites that posted images stolen from Perfect 10’s magazine and website. Perfect 10 appeals the district court’s finding that CCBill and CWIE qualified for certain statutory safe harbors from copyright infringement liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (”DMCA”), 17 U.S.C. § 512, and that CCBill and CWIE were immune from liability for state law unfair competition and false advertising claims based on the Communications Decency Act (”CDA”), 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). CCBill and CWIE cross-appeal, arguing that the district court erred in holding that the CDA does not provide immunity against Perfect 10’s right of publicity claims and in denying . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an order and opinion in USA v. ALMAZAN-BACERRA, No. 05-10056, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of J. Clifford Wallace, Michael Daly Hawkins, and Sidney R. Thomas, Circuit Judges.

WALLACE, Senior Circuit Judge:
Almazan-Becerra appeals from his sentence of seventy months imprisonment after a conviction of illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the district court’s application of both a sixteen-level and a twelve-level enhancement based on prior felony drug convictions was erroneous. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). We vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. I. Almazan-Becerra is a Mexican national who was deported from the United States on three occasions: May 14, 1992, . . .

The opinion filed on August 1, 2006, cited at 456 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2006) is hereby withdrawn. OPINION WALLACE, Senior Circuit Judge:
Almazan-Becerra appeals from his sentence of seventy months imprisonment after a conviction of illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the district court’s application of both a sixteen-level and a twelve-level enhancement based on prior felony drug convictions was erroneous. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). We vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. I. Almazan-Becerra is a Mexican national who was deported from the United States on three occasions: May 14, 1992, . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. JACKSON, No. 05-30058, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of Ronald M. Gould and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges, and William W Schwarzer, District Judge.

BERZON, Circuit Judge:
Gary Jackson was indicted for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2423(c), which punishes any United States citizen “who travels in foreign commerce, and engages in any illicit sexual conduct with another person.” The district court held that application of this statute to Jackson’s conduct might well violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution, and interpreted the statute narrowly to avoid any constitutional infirmity. We concentrate on the statutory interpretation question and approach it somewhat differently: Using any reasonable definition of the word “travel,” we conclude, Jackson’s actions fell outside the conduct that Congress proscribed. We therefore affirm the district court’s decision to dismiss the indictment. I. Factual Background The factual circumstances of this case are undisputed and quite disturbing. The defendant, Gary Jackson, is a United States citizen and retired marine carpenter. In November 2001, Jackson and his longtime domestic partner, James Kleven, left the United States to relocate permanently to Cambodia. They sold their home and shipped or sold their remaining property. The couple sent money to a friend in Cambodia, who purchased a. . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in GOLDSTEIN v. VAN DE KAMP, No. 06-55537, a civil rights appeal. The panel consisted of Stephen Reinhardt and Robert R. Beezer, Circuit Judges, and Thelton E. Henderson, District Judge.

HENDERSON, District Judge:
In this case, we are asked to determine whether an elected district attorney and his chief deputy are entitled to absolute immunity from suit based on allegations that they failed to develop policies and procedures, and failed to adequately train and supervise their subordinates, to fulfill their constitutional obligation of ensuring that information regarding jailhouse informants was shared among prosecutors in their . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. HOWARD, No. 03-50524, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of Mary M. Schroeder, Chief Judge, Ronald M. Gould and Richard R. Clifton, Circuit Judges.

SCHROEDER, Chief Judge:
This is an interlocutory appeal by criminal defendants challenging a requirement that pretrial detainees making their first appearance before a magistrate judge wear leg shackles. The district-wide shackling policy was implemented by the United States Marshals Service for the Central District of California after consultation with the magistrate judges. In each of these seventeen cases, a magistrate judge denied the Federal Public Defender’s motion for the defendant to appear without shackles at the initial appearance. The district court reviewed these . . .