The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in BRADLEY v. HENRY, No. 04-15919, a habeas corpus appeal. The panel consisted of Mary M. Schroeder, Harry Pregerson, Warren J. Ferguson, John T. Noonan, Sidney R. Thomas, Barry G. Silverman, William A. Fletcher, Marsha S. Berzon, Richard C. Tallman, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, and Richard R. Clifton, Circuit Judges.

The separate opinion by Judge Clifton concurring in the judgment filed on December 19, 2007 is amended as follows: At slip op., p. 16515, 510 F.3d 1093, 1099, insert the following footnote at the end of the first paragraph of the separate opinion:
The plurality opinion has been joined by only five of the eleven judges on this limited en banc panel. Because that constitutes less than a majority of the 1799 . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. GARRO, No. 06-50513, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of J. Clifford Wallace, Sandra S. Ikuta, and N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges.

WALLACE, Senior Circuit Judge:
Garro appeals from his 135-month prison sentence after a jury conviction of eight counts of wire fraud, see 18 U.S.C. § 1343, eleven counts of money laundering, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 (a)(1)(A)(i), (a)(1)(B)(i), and one count of tax evasion, see 26 U.S.C. § 7201. He argues that the district court erroneously applied the Sentencing Guidelines and imposed an unreasonable sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and we affirm Garro’s sentence. I. In September and October of 1999, Garro, holding himself out to be a self-employed financial consultant for foreign countries wanting to stimulate their economies, raised $37.5 million dollars from five investors: (1) TLC America ($20 million); (2) Child’s Hope ($10 million); (3) Kelldeer & Carrington ($3.5 million); (4) Veronica Disabello ($2 million); and (5) Curtis Martin ($2 million). The money was for the purpose of entering what Garro called a “Leveraged Investment Program,” which would buy and resell “medium term bank notes” in foreign markets. Each investor entered into a written contract with Garro’s business entity, Sienna Financial, Ltd., and was promised at least double his or her investment in fifteen days. . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. BARSUMYAN, No. 07-50251, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of Jerome Farris and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges, and H. Russel Holland, District Judge.

MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judge:
Defendant-Appellant Aram Barsumyan appeals the sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to one count of possession of device-making equipment under 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(4). Barsumyan contends that his 21month prison sentence was unreasonable because the operation of U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10) effected a 6-level increase in his offense level. Barsumyan also argues that the sentencing court impermissibly imposed two conditions of supervised release: a restriction on “access[ing] or possess[ing] any computer or computer-related devices in any manner,” and a requirement that, if he is deported and reenters the country, he . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in PACIFIC MERCHANT v. CACKETTE, No. 07-16695, a federal appeal. The panel consisted of Barry G. Silverman, M. Margaret McKeown, and Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judges.

SILVERMAN, Circuit Judge:
On January 1, 2007, the California Air Resources Board began enforcing state regulations, the “Marine Vessel Rules,” limiting emissions from the auxiliary diesel engines of oceangoing vessels within twenty-four miles of California’s coast. The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, a group of companies that own or operate ocean-going vessels subject to the Marine Vessel Rules, filed suit to enjoin their enforcement because, they argue, the Rules are preempted by the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671q, and the Submerged Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1302. We affirm the district court’s ruling that the Marine Vessel Rules are preempted by the Clean Air Act and we reinstate that court’s injunction against enforcement of the Marine Vessel Rules. I. Facts The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 created a scheme for the regulation of emissions from nonroad sources such as lawnmowers, bulldozers, locomotives, and marine vessels. See Engine Mfrs. Ass’n v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 88 F.3d 1075, 1078 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (”EMA“). The amendments gov. . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in SYBERSOUND RECORDS, INC. v. UAV CORPORATION, No. 06-55221, a federal appeal. The panel consisted of Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges, and Michael W. Mosman, District Judge.

MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judge:
Sybersound Records (Sybersound), a karaoke record producer, appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing the first amended complaint (FAC) it filed against its competitors (collectively, Corporation Defendants), and their officers and employees (collectively, Individual Defendants). We affirm the judgment of the district court. In this appeal, we determine whether a party lacking standing to bring a copyright infringement suit under the Copyright Act, but who complains of competitive injury stemming from acts of alleged infringement, may bring a Lanham Act claim, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claim, or related state law unfair competition claims, whose successful prosecution would require the litigation of the underlying infringement claim. We hold that it cannot. We also consider whether the transfer of an interest in a divisible copyright interest from a copyright co-owner to Sybersound, unaccompanied by a like transfer from the other copyright co-owners, can be an assignment or exclusive license that gives the transferee a co-ownership interest in the copyright. We hold that it cannot. I. Factual Background A. Copyright Compliance Statements Sybersound and the Corporation Defendants are competitors that produce and sell karaoke records. They primarily sell to a group of distributors and retailers that resell these records to the public. This purchasing group (collectively, Customers) includes Anderson Merchandising, Handleman Entertainment Resources, Alliance Entertainment Corporation, Wal*Mart, KMart, Best Buy, Toys “R” Us, and Fry’s Electronics. . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in SMITH v. MITCHELL, No. 04-55831, a habeas corpus appeal. The panel consisted of Harry Pregerson and William C. Canby, Jr., Circuit Judges, and Edward C. Reed, Jr., District Judge.

The State has filed a petition for panel and en banc rehearing of our order reinstating our decision granting habeas corpus relief to appellant Smith. See Smith v. Patrick, 508 F.3d 1256 (9th Cir. 2007). By supplemental letter, see Fed. R. App. P. 28(j), the State has called our attention to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Wright v. Van Patten, 128 S. Ct. 743 (2008) (per curiam). In Van Patten, the Seventh Circuit had held that an attorney’s appearance by speaker phone at a plea hearing constituted ineffective assistance of counsel that was inherently prejudicial under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984). See Van Patten v. Deppisch, 434 F.3d 1038 (7th Cir. 2006). The Supreme Court vacated the decision and remanded for reconsideration in light of Carey v. Musladin, 127 S. Ct. 649 (2006). See Schmidt v. Van Patten, 127 S. Ct. 1120 (2007) (mem.). On remand, the Seventh Circuit adhered *The Honorable Edward C. Reed, Jr., Senior United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation. 1703 . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in TALL v. MUKASEY, No. 06-72804, an administrative appeal. The panel consisted of Barry G. Silverman, M. Margaret McKeown, and Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judges.

SILVERMAN, Circuit Judge:
Elimane Tall, a native and citizen of Senegal, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s decision finding him inadmissible for having been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, namely California Penal Code § 350(a), which punishes “[a]ny person who willfully manufactures, intentionally sells, or knowingly possesses for sale any counterfeit . . . mark.” Tall argues that California Penal Code § 350(a) is not a crime involving moral turpitude. We hold today that it is. . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in WILLIAMS v. THE BOEING COMPANY, No. 06-35196, a civil rights appeal. The panel consisted of Robert R. Beezer, A. Wallace Tashima, and Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judges.

TALLMAN, Circuit Judge:
Nearly ten years ago, Plaintiffs filed suit against The Boeing Company (”Boeing”) claiming that they had been discriminated against in their employment on the basis of their race. The case has a complicated procedural history and has, at times, involved a number of different claims and plaintiff classes. The issues on appeal are fairly narrow. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that between June 4, 1994, and May 28, 2000, . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. TURVIN, No. 06-30551, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of J. Clifford Wallace, John T. Noonan, and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges.

WALLACE, Senior Circuit Judge:
The government appeals from the district court’s order suppressing evidence obtained from the search of Turvin’s vehicle. While Turvin was waiting for a police officer to issue a traffic citation, the officer questioned Turvin about methamphetamine and obtained Turvin’s consent to search his vehicle for contraband. The district court held that the officer’s questions about methamphetamine and request to conduct a . . .

PAEZ, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
Because I do not believe that reasonable suspicion supported Trooper Christensen’s decision to prolong his traffic stop of Turvin, I would affirm the district court’s order granting Turvin’s motion to suppress. I therefore respectfully dissent. First, I agree with the majority that after the Supreme Court’s decision in Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005), our analysis of the Fourth Amendment issues in this case must be guided by our recent decision in United States v. Mendez, 476 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2007). There, we recognized that in Muehler, the Court decided that “mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure unless it prolongs the detention of the individual, and, thus, no reasonable suspicion is required to justify questioning that does not prolong the stop.” Mendez, 476 F.3d at 1080 (internal quotation marks omitted). Although Muehler did not arise in the context of a traffic stop, . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in BETZ v. TRAINER WORTHAM - APPENDIX, No. 05-15704, a federal appeal.