The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in CLARK v. TIME WARNER, No. 07-55794, a federal appeal. The panel consisted of Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, and William A. Fletcher, Circuit Judges.

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:
We must decide whether the doctrine of primary jurisdiction permits a district court to refer a claim raising a novel and technical question of federal telecommunications policy to the Federal Communications Commission for its consideration in the first instance. I Time Warner Cable (”TWC”) is one of the largest cable operators in the United States. Among other products and services, TWC markets “Digital Phone,” a bundle of local and long distance calling services that utilize Voice over Internet Protocol (”VoIP”) technology. VoIP uses the Internet to transmit telephone signals rather than using the traditional public switched telephone network (”PSTN”). As such, VoIP has the capacity to transmit voice and data streams simultaneously, whereas PSTN-based connections only have the capacity to transmit one signal at a time. Appellant K. Clark maintained two separate PSTN phone lines in her home, one serviced by Vonage, the other serviced by Verizon. On February 24, 2007, Clark received a telephone call from a TWC sales representative soliciting her to switch over to TWC’s Digital Phone package. Clark, initially intrigued, conversed with the salesperson, who at one point indicated that Digital Phone offered a six-hour backup that would allow Clark to continue making calls and to dial 9-1-1 in the event her cable was disconnected. Clark was later transferred to a second sales representative who corrected the false assertion made by the first, explaining to Clark that Digital Phone did not offer any backup system at all. In response to this news, Clark informed the sales representative that she was not interested in TWC’s service and hung up the phone. . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in DELAWARE VALLEY SURGICAL SUPPLY INC. v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, No. 08-55105, a federal appeal. The panel consisted of Alfred T. Goodwin, Harry Pregerson, and Dorothy W. Nelson, Circuit Judges.

D.W. NELSON, Senior Circuit Judge:
This appeal stems from a disagreement between two different groups of plaintiffs about who has standing as a “direct purchaser” to bring a claim under federal antitrust laws. One group consists of Delaware Valley Surgical Supply Company, Inc., (”DVSS”) and Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center (”Niagara”). They are both entities that bought medical supplies directly from Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries (”J&J”). The other plaintiff is Bamberg County Memorial Hospital & Nursing Center (”Bamberg”), a hospital that had a contract with J&J setting a list price for the purchase of medical supplies, but that ultimately purchased its J&J products through a separate contract with a third-party distributor. DVSS, Niagara, and Bamberg all brought independent antitrust claims against J&J. The district court consolidated the three cases. Before reaching the merits of the underlying antitrust claims, the district court ruled that Bamberg lacked standing to assert its claim against J&J. The district court reasoned that because Bamberg bought its supply through a distributor and not from J&J, it was not a “direct purchaser.” Bamberg and J&J both contest that decision through this interlocutory appeal. We affirm the order of the district court, and hold that Bamberg lacks standing to pursue an antitrust claim under a direct purchaser theory. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Three plaintiffs brought antitrust actions against J&J arising from the manufacturer’s contracts with hospitals and their group purchasing organizations (”GPOs”). This litigation involves two categories of products: sutures used to close wounds and endomechanical products (”endos”) used primarily for minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery. The plaintiffs . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an amended order in BERING STRAIT CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE RESOURCEDEVELOPMENT v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, No. 07-35506, an appeal in a civil action against the United States. The panel consisted of Betty B. Fletcher, Andrew J. Kleinfeld, and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges.

GOULD, Circuit Judge:
This appeal concerns a permit issued to DefendantAppellee Alaska Gold Company (”AGC”), by DefendantAppellee Army Corps of Engineers (”the Corps”) for a major gold-mining project near Nome, Alaska. The permit was issued pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (”CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1344, which authorizes the Corps to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters of the United States. The project, known as the “Rock Creek Mine Project,” would consist of two open-pit gold mines at separate locations outside of Nome, plus facilities built for recovering and processing gold ore. Once the project is commenced, about 15,592,411 cubic yards of fill from the mine will be placed in wetlands totaling 346.5 acres. Plaintiffs-Appellants Bering Strait Citizens for Responsible Resource Development, Susan Steinacher, and Jana Varrati (collectively, “BSC”), allege that the Corps violated the CWA and the National Environmental Policy Act (”NEPA”) by granting a permit for the Rock Creek Mine Project. BSC appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for a tempo. . .

The opinion filed on January 3, 2008 and published at 511 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2008), is AMENDED as follows. The sixth sentence of the final paragraph in section V-B-1 states: The impact of isolated placer mining, which often involves only small-scale operations, in our view is not germane to the cumulative impacts assessment of the Rock Creek Mining Project. That sentence is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following language: The Corps also considered the cumulative impact of placer mining in the region. In our view, the impact of the isolated, small-scale placer mining that exists in the Nome region today is not germane to the cumulative impacts assessment of the large-scale hard rock mining project at issue here. In addition, we understand that reclamation is required at the end of placer mining projects. See Alaska Stat. § 27.19.020. Because nearly all of the Nome district has been previously mined, much of it prior to the introduction of reclamation requirements, any new placer mining projects will result in remediation of historic mining impacts. The panel has unanimously voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judges Kleinfeld and Gould voted to deny . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in HERNANDEZ v. MUKASEY, No. 04-72696, an administrative appeal. The panel consisted of Stephen S. Trott, Richard R. Clifton, and Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judges.

CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge:
Gerardo Hernandez and Elizabeth Prado, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigra. . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. STOTERAU, No. 07-50124, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of J. Clifford Wallace, Ronald M. Gould, and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.

IKUTA, Circuit Judge:
Joseph Stoterau pleaded guilty to transporting child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1). In this appeal, he challenges several aspects of his sentence, including the length of his term of imprisonment and several special conditions of his supervised release. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. I In December 2005, Joseph Stoterau, then 26, met John Doe at a gay and lesbian support group. Doe was 14 at the time. In July 2006, Stoterau introduced Doe to the website “rentboy.com.” Stoterau explained that the site was an opportunity for the two of them to make some money. Doe agreed to allow Stoterau to take nude pictures of him. Stoterau then uploaded the photos to rentboy.com and included his own cell phone number as Doe’s contact information. When rentboy.com customers would call, Stoterau would pretend to be Doe. Stoterau would tell customers that he (Doe) would engage in whatever type of sex they wanted for $250 per hour. Stoterau would then get in contact with Doe and provide him with the customers’ details. On at least two occasions Stoterau drove Doe to locations where customers paid Doe $250 for various sex acts. After these meetings, Doe would give part of the $250 to Stoterau. Stoterau would give Doe alcoholic beverages before each meeting. On August 4, 2006, officers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement executed a search warrant at Stoterau’s residence. During the search, officers seized Stoterau’s personal computer. A subsequent search of the hard drive revealed images depicting child pornography, that is, visual depictions . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in GREGORY v. COUNTY OF MAUI, No. 06-15374, a civil rights appeal. The panel consisted of Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, A. Wallace Tashima, and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges.

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:
We must decide whether police officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment in attempting to restrain an individual. I A On December 2, 2002, Richard Gregory and a friend were guests in a music studio operated by Vincent Finazzo and Jason Fuqua in Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii. Finazzo and Fuqua were playing music and working on new songs, and they eventually decided to leave the studio and asked Gregory to do the same. Gregory, however, had taken interest in a guitar he found and insisted on staying. An exchange soon became heated, as Gregory took on an increasingly pugnacious tone and posture, telling Finazzo, “Don’t make me hit you.” When Finazzo tried to call a friend of Gregory’s to calm him down, Gregory threw Finazzo’s cell phone to the ground. Gregory began to pace around the room, stating that “we’re all going . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in CHOE v. TORRES, No. 06-56634, a habeas corpus appeal. The panel consisted of Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judge, and Harold Baer, Jr., Senior District Judge.

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:
We consider whether the district court erred in denying Man-Seok Choe’s habeas corpus petition challenging certification of his extradition to the Republic of Korea. Facts Choe is a Korean citizen and a resident of Los Angeles. In the 1990s, he traveled frequently to Korea on business, where he was acquainted with important political figures. During . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. MEDINA, No. 05-30477, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of Raymond C. Fisher, Ronald M. Gould, and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.

IKUTA, Circuit Judge:
The district court dismissed Martin Medina’s indictment without prejudice after determining that the excessive pretrial delays violated the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 31613174. On appeal, Medina disputes the district court’s speedy trial calculations and its decision to dismiss the indictment without prejudice. I On March 3, 2004, Martin Medina, Jr. and four codefendants were charged in a 12-count indictment. Medina was charged with one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine and four counts of distribution of methamphetamine. Of the five charged co-defendants, Medina was the only one to stand trial on the charges. Two of Medina’s co-defendants pleaded guilty on September 13, 2004, and one pleaded guilty on September 20, 2004. The fourth co-defendant fled while released on bond. Between March 3, 2004, and the first day of trial on June 6, 2005, there were several delays, two of which are at issue in this case. The first delay began on March 31, 2004, when one of Medina’s co-defendants, Contreras, filed three pretrial motions: a motion to sever counts and defendants, a motion to suppress statements, and a motion to suppress evidence. Contreras requested oral argument for each of these motions. The district court denied these motions as moot after Contreras pleaded guilty on September 20, 2004. . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in NEGRETE v. ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA,, No. 07-55505, a federal appeal. The panel consisted of Harry Pregerson, Dorothy W. Nelson, and Ferdinand F. Fernandez, Circuit Judges.

FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judge:
Vida F. Negrete filed this class action lawsuit against Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America. Allianz appeals a district court order that effectively prevents it from proceeding with any settlement negotiations on similar class action claims raised in any federal or state court without first obtaining permission from Negrete’s Co-Lead Counsel, and from finalizing a settlement in any other court “that resolves, in whole or in part, the claims brought in [the Negrete] action,” without first obtaining the district court’s approval. We reverse. BACKGROUND On September 21, 2005, Vida F. Negrete filed a class . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in ALALI-AMIN v. MUKASEY, No. 06-75411, an administrative appeal. The panel consisted of William C. Canby, Jr., and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges, and Stephen G. Larson, District Judge.

LARSON, District Judge:
Sayed Mohamad Alali-Amin, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (”BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (”IJ”) denial of his motion to reopen as untimely. For the reason set forth below, we deny the petition. The REAL ID Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), confers jurisdiction upon this court to review constitutional claims and questions of law related to an order of removal. Petitioner was admitted to the United States on August 14, 1983, on a six-month, non-immigrant visa. On December 6, 1983, his status was changed to student, and he was authorized to remain for the duration of that status. On September 9, 1988, petitioner filed an application for asylum, which was denied on March 7, 1990, and petitioner was subjected to deportation proceedings because he failed to comply with the conditions of his status. On June 20, 1990, an Immigration Judge (”IJ”) found petitioner deportable and issued a deporta. . .