The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in LOCAL JOINT EXECUTIVE BOARD OF LAS VEGAS v. NLRB, No. 05-75515, an administrative appeal. The panel consisted of Jane R. Roth, Sidney R. Thomas, and Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judges.

CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge:
Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas, the Culinary Workers Unions Local 226, and the Bartenders Unions, Local 165, AFL-CIO (”the Unions”), petition this court for review of a decision by the National Labor Relations Board (”the Board”) reversing the Administrative Law Judge’s (”ALJ”) conclusion that agents of Aladdin Gaming, LLC, (”the Company”) engaged in illegal surveillance in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (”NLRA” or “the Act”). We deny the Unions’ petition for review. FACTS The Company operates a hotel and casino in Las Vegas, Nevada. On May 30, 2003, the Unions began an open campaign to organize the housekeeping, food, and beverage departments. During the organizing campaign that followed, the Company committed some unfair labor practices that are not at issue in this case. The issue in this appeal is whether two incidents where human resources managers interrupted employees who were discussing union cards in an open dining room constitute unlawful surveillance under Section 8(a)(1). The first incident involved Tracy Sapien, the Company’s. . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. SNIPE, No. 06-30215, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of David R. Thompson, Andrew J. Kleinfeld, and Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges.

BYBEE, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Sonny Snipe challenges his conviction and sen . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an amended order in USA v. LOCOCO, No. 05-50550, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, A. Wallace Tashima and M. Margaret McKeown, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Defendants pled guilty to conspiring to possess and distribute cocaine. We consider the government’s application for the wiretap on which its case was built, an allegation of prosecutorial misconduct and the constitutionality of defendants’ sentences. [1] 1. The wiretap application describes the investigative techniques the police tried and explains how they failed: Confidential informants were either incarcerated, unwilling to testify or else distrusted by the targets; efforts to recruit other informants failed; and attempts to gather evidence by other means–including direct and hidden surveillance, trash searches and searches of paroled gang members’ homes-yielded nothing. Defendants haven’t shown any basis to doubt the application’s representations. “Law enforcement officials need not exhaust every conceivable investigative technique before seeking a wiretap order.” United States v. Staves, 383 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2004). The district court didn’t abuse its discretion in finding that the application justified the wiretap. [2] 2. Defendants haven’t shown that the wiretap application contained false statements or material omissions, so there was no need for a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). The claim that Special Agent King reviewed Jackson’s calls since March 2002 isn’t demonstrably false; though the police’s pen register authority only began in July of that year, King also had Jackson’s telephone toll records, which may have reached back to March. Nor did the application understate informant CS-1’s closeness to Jackson; on the contrary, it acknowledged that CS-1 could buy drugs from her. Though the application didn’t mention that Jackson was in the Blood Stone Villains gang, that didn’t matter; the point . . .

The opinion filed December 27, 2007 is ordered amended. The following paragraph, which appears on page 16760 of the slip opinion, is deleted:
Though Lococo denied knowing that his coconspirators converted the powder cocaine he sold them into crack cocaine, he admitted that he joined a conspiracy to distribute crack. The district court therefore didn’t violate the Sixth Amendment when it sentenced him based on the crack his coconspirators distributed. See United States v. Mercado Irizarry, 404 F.3d 497, 504 (1st Cir. 2005) . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an order in NRDC v. WINTER, No. 08-55054, an appeal in a civil action against the United States. The panel consisted of Betty B. Fletcher, Dorothy W. Nelson and Stephen Reinhardt, Circuit Judges.

The panel’s January 16, 2008 order remanding the case to the district court is designated for publication. . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. CARR, No. 07-30133, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of William C. Canby, Jr., Susan P. Graber, and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges.

CANBY, Circuit Judge:
Marco Delano Carr appeals his conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The underlying felony was Carr’s conviction in Washington state court for “Felony Violation of a Protection Order–Domestic Violence,” Wash. Rev. Code § 26.50.110(5). Violation of a protection order is normally a gross misdemeanor in Washington, but section 26.50.110(5) makes it a felony if the offender has two previous convictions for violation of a protection order. Carr contends that, for purposes of the federal felon-in-possession statute, we should construe his predicate Washington conviction as a gross misdemeanor, because in some other contexts we have ignored recidivist sentencing enhancements in determining the severity of a conviction. We reject Carr’s contention because the statutory structure under which he was convicted requires that we treat his predicate Washington conviction as a felony. We accordingly affirm his conviction. . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. CHERER, No. 06-10642, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of John T. Noonan and M. Margaret McKeown, Circuit Judges, and David G. Trager, District Judge.

TRAGER, District Judge:
Paris Cherer was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) for attempting to persuade, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in sexual acts with him. He appeals his conviction on two grounds. First, that the district court committed prejudicial error by improperly instructing the jury, and second, that the district court improperly admitted evidence of his past conviction and other prior bad acts under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). He also appeals his sentence of 293 months on the grounds that it is unreasonably long. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Cherer’s sentence is appealable under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). We affirm the conviction and sentence. Background On July 8, 2005, FBI Special Agent Sue Flaherty was in an America Online chat room in an undercover capacity, using the AOL screen name “SusieBabyGirl.” And Cherer, using the screen name “G8rwith8nGV,” initiated a chat with her. . . .

NOONAN, Circuit Judge, concurring and dissenting:
I concur in affirming Cherer’s conviction. I dissent as to his sentencing. Gall v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 586 (2007), and Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 558 (2007), have clarified certain uncertainties and in doing so made crystal clear the role of the Sentencing Guidelines and the respect owned them. The Guidelines are the starting point for the district judge deciding on a sentence. Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 596; Kimbrough, . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an order and opinion in USA v. COMPREHENSIVE DRUG TESTING, INC., No. 05-10067, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Sidney R. Thomas, and Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judges.

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:
We must decide whether the United States may retain evidence it seized from Major League Baseball’s drug testing administrator, and enforce an additional subpoena, as part of an ongoing grand jury investigation into illegal steroid use by professional athletes. I These three consolidated cases arise from the federal investigation of the Bay Area Lab Cooperative (”Balco”) and its alleged distribution of illegal steroids to enhance the performance of professional baseball athletes. The investigation began in August 2002 and, over the following several years, produced evidence–including grand jury testimony-establishing probable cause to believe that at least 10 major league baseball players received illegal steroids from Balco. Today we decide the government’s appeals from the separate adverse orders of three different district courts: (1) an order by Judge Florence-Marie Cooper in the Central District of California, denying reconsideration of her earlier order requiring the government to return property seized from Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc. in Long Beach, California (”CDT”),1 (2) an order by Judge James Mahan in the District of Nevada, requiring the government to return property seized from Quest Diagnostics, Inc. in Las Vegas, Nevada (”Quest”), and (3) an order by Judge Susan Illston in the Northern District of California, quashing the government’s May 6, 2004, subpoenas to CDT and Quest that related to the grand jury sitting in San Francisco, California.. . .

The petitions for panel rehearing are GRANTED. The opinion and dissent filed on December 27, 2006, are withdrawn. The superseding opinion and dissenting opinion of Judge Thomas will be filed concurrently with this order. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED as moot. Further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc may be filed. . . .

THOMAS, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
One of the three extremely able district court judges who rejected the government’s argument summarized it best, stating: “What happened to the Fourth Amendment? Was it repealed somehow?” Although it only had a search warrant for data concerning eleven Major League Baseball players, the government seized . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in MOLALES v. APOLINAR v. MUKASEY, No. 04-73484, an administrative appeal. The panel consisted of Harry Pregerson, Michael Daly Hawkins, and Raymond C. Fisher, Circuit Judges.

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge:
Maria Edith Morales Apolinar (”Morales”) petitions for review of two decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (”BIA”): one dismissing her appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (”IJ”) denial of cancellation of removal and rejecting her claim that James Robert Valinoti (”Valinoti”) provided ineffective assistance (No. 04-73484) and another denying her motion to reconsider its earlier decision (No. 04-75248). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant relief and remand for a merits hearing on Morales’s cancellation of removal application. BACKGROUND Morales is a twenty-eight year-old native and citizen of Mexico. She testified that she first entered the United States . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in UNITED COASTALS INSURANCE v. BECHTEL HANFORD, INC., No. 06-35310, a federal appeal. The panel consisted of Richard D. Cudahy, Stephen Reinhardt, and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges.

CUDAHY, Circuit Judge:
United Coastal Insurance Company (UCIC) appeals the district court’s order granting Bechtel Hanford, Inc.’s (Bechtel’s) motion for judgment on a supersedeas bond. Bechtel was awarded a judgment in 2004 against Acstar Insurance Co. (Acstar) and P.W. Stephens Contractors, Inc. (PWS). Acstar obtained a supersedeas bond from UCIC and appealed the judgment against it. After we affirmed in part and reversed in part, Bechtel moved to collect the entire 2004 judgment from UCIC. The district court concluded that the supersedeas bond covered the judgment against both Acstar and PWS and granted Bechtel’s motion, ordering UCIC to pay the entire underlying judgment. On appeal, UCIC claims that the bond secured only Bechtel’s judgment against Acstar. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We agree with UCIC that the bond secures only Acstar’s obligations on the underlying judgment and therefore reverse. Because Acstar’s liability has been satisfied, we direct entry of judgment in favor of UCIC. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This case is the product of a breach of contract dispute in an environmental remediation project. Bechtel contracted with the United States Department of Energy (DOE) to perform environmental clean-up work at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington. PWS entered a subcontract with Bechtel to work under Bechtel’s prime contract with DOE and obtained a performance bond from Acstar. When PWS defaulted on the subcontract, Contractors Equipment Maintenance Company, Inc., a second-tier subcontractor, sued Bechtel, PWS and Acstar. Bechtel subsequently filed cross-claims against PWS and Acstar. On March 23, 2004, the district. . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an en banc opinion in BELTRAN v. SANTA CLARA COUNTY, No. 05-16976, a civil rights appeal. The panel consisted of Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Stephen Reinhardt, Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Michael Daly Hawkins, Kim McLane Wardlaw, William A. Fletcher, Ronald M. Gould, Richard A. Paez, Marsha S. Berzon, Richard R. Clifton and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
1. Melissa Suarez, a social worker for Santa Clara County’s child protective services, investigated whether Lori Beltran was abusing her son, Coby. After this investigation, Suarez’s supervisor Emily Tjhin filed a child dependency petition, which Tjhin signed under penalty of perjury. This petition included a three-page statement of facts describing the findings of Suarez’s investigation. Suarez also filed a separate custody petition, which she signed under penalty of perjury. The custody petition attached and incorporated by reference the three-page statement of facts from the dependency petition. . . .