The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. SHI, No. 06-10389, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, A. Wallace Tashima, and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges.

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:
We are called upon to decide whether a foreign national who forcibly seizes control of a foreign vessel in international waters may be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when such vessel is intercepted by federal authorities. I A On March 14, 2002, the Full Means No. 2, a Taiwanese fishing vessel registered in the Republic of the Seychelles, was sailing in international waters off the coast of Hawaii. The Captain of the vessel was Taiwanese, while its 29 crewmembers, including Lei Shi, the ship’s cook, were mainland Chinese. According to Shi, the Captain and First Mate beat and harassed him repeatedly and, on this date, demoted Shi. . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an amended order in USA v. STAFFELDT, No. 05-10243, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of Stephen Reinhardt, John T. Noonan, and Michael Daly Hawkins, Circuit Judges.

The Government’s unopposed motion to amend the opinion is GRANTED. The opinion published at 451 F.3d 578 (9th Cir. 2006) is amended to delete all mentions of the name “Keith Vercauteren.” Accordingly, the phrase “In September 2003, Assistant United States Attorney Keith Vercauteren (”AUSA Vercauteren”) . . . ” shall be amended to read, “In September 2003, an Assistant United States Attorney (”the AUSA”) . . . ” All subsequent references to “AUSA Vercauteren” shall be amended to read, “the AUSA.” 4215 . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. GARCIA, No. 05-30356, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of J. Clifford Wallace, Kim McLane Wardlaw and Raymond C. Fisher, Circuit Judges.

FISHER, Circuit Judge: This appeal requires us to consider several allegations of sentencing error. We also must determine whether a district court commits plain error by failing to explicitly set the maximum number of non-treatment related drug tests to which the defendant will be exposed as a condition of supervised release. Finally, we must evaluate whether a district court commits plain error by imposing a financial disclosure condition on a defendant who has been convicted of a drug trafficking offense and has a history of drug use. We affirm the sentences imposed and hold that the district court did not commit plain error by imposing either condition. I. Background Because the issues on appeal are exclusively related to sentencing, we need not recount detailed facts of the underlying criminal offenses to which the defendants pled guilty. Rather, we explain only those facts relevant to our resolution of the defendants’ allegations of sentencing error. Adrian Garcia, Ivan Torres and Miguel PlascenciaAlvarado were all involved in a large-scale drug trafficking conspiracy in the Western District of Washington. After being charged with various crimes, all three entered into Rule 11 written plea agreements. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C).. . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an order in USA v. GARCIA, No. 05-30356, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of J. Clifford Wallace, Kim McLane Wardlaw and Raymond C. Fisher, Circuit Judges.

The panel has voted to grant the joint petition for panel rehearing filed by Appellants Adrian Garcia (case no. 0530356) and Miguel Plascencia-Alvarado (case no. 05-30415). Judges Wardlaw and Fisher voted to deny the joint petition for rehearing en banc and Judge Wallace recommended denying the joint petition for rehearing en banc. The full court has been advised of the joint petition for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. Appellants’ joint petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED and the petition for rehearing en banc, is DENIED. The opinion filed on November 19, 2007, and appearing at 507 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2007) is amended. The superseding amended opinion will be filed concurrently with this order. The parties may file a petition for rehearing based on the amended opinion. . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. GRISSOM,, No. 06-10688, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of John R. Gibson, A. Wallace Tashima, and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges.

TASHIMA, Circuit Judge:
The United States appeals the sentence imposed on Larry James Grissom following Grissom’s guilty plea and conviction for distribution of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). The government contends that the district court erred in rejecting quantities of crack cocaine from two dismissed counts when calculating Grissom’s base offense level under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (”Guidelines”). It argues that the quantities, properly considered, would have resulted in a Guidelines range 21 months higher than the sentence imposed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate Grissom’s sentence and remand. BACKGROUND On July 5, 2005, a witness cooperating with federal agents arranged to purchase one ounce of crack cocaine from Grissom in the parking lot of a Best Buy store in East Palo Alto. A short time later, the witness and Grissom completed the transaction. Less than a week later, on July 11, 2005, a cooperating witness contacted an individual named Larry Darnell Hill, Jr., to arrange the purchase of two ounces of crack cocaine. Hill told . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. NORBERTO REVELES-ESPINOZA, No. 05-50905, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of Raymond C. Fisher and Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judges, and Raner C. Collins, District Judge. Per Curiam Opinion The Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. 4031

---

UNITED STATES v. REVELES-ESPINOZA 4033 COUNSEL Marisa L. Dersey, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, California, for the defendant-appellant. Jonathan I. Shapiro, Assistant United States Attorney, San Diego, California, for the plaintiff-appellee.

---

4034 UNITED STATES v. REVELES-ESPINOZA OPINION PER CURIAM: Norberto Reveles-Espinoza was convicted under 8 U.S.C.

PER CURIAM:
Norberto Reveles-Espinoza was convicted under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He appeals his conviction, arguing that the deportation underlying his conviction was improper because: (1) the immigration judge failed to advise him he was eligible for cancellation of removal and (2) he received insufficient notice of the asserted basis for his deportation. We affirm. I. Factual and Procedural Background Reveles-Espinoza was born in Mexico and was admitted to the United States from Mexico as an immigrant in 1965. He was convicted in Los Angeles County Superior Court of felony cultivation of marijuana under California Health and Safety Code § 11358 in August 1999. In 2003, he was notified to appear before an immigration judge (IJ) based on the government’s contention that he was deportable because of conviction for a “controlled substance offense.” At the hearing, Reveles-Espinoza conceded removability because of his conviction for a “drug offense.” He admitted he had previously been convicted of heroin possession in 1989 and 1994. The government asserted that Reveles-Espinoza had also been convicted of battery against a police officer in 1981 and unreasonable noise in 2003. The IJ ruled that Reveles-Espinoza would have been able to apply for a waiver if he had only the heroin and noise convictions, but because his most recent conviction for cultivation of marijuana was an aggravated felony, he was not eligible for any relief. The IJ ordered him removed from the United States. He appealed the removal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion. He was deported to Mexico in August 2004. In November 2004, Reveles-Espinoza was arrested in California and admitted to being in the country unlawfully. He . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an order in USA v. NORBERTO REVELES-ESPINOZA, No. 05-50905, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of Raymond C. Fisher and Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judges, and Raner C. Collins, District Judge. ORDER Appellant’s petition for rehearing, filed November 2, 2007, is GRANTED. The memorandum disposition filed on Octo- ber 19, 2007, and appearing at 251 Fed. Appx. 455 (9th Cir.

Appellant’s petition for rehearing, filed November 2, 2007, is GRANTED. The memorandum disposition filed on October 19, 2007, and appearing at 251 Fed. Appx. 455 (9th Cir. 2007) is withdrawn. The superseding per curiam opinion will be filed concurrently with this order. The parties may file an additional petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. All other pending motions are denied as moot. *The Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. 3969 . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. IBRAHIM, No. 07-50153, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of J. Clifford Wallace, Ronald M. Gould, and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.

WALLACE, Circuit Judge:
Tamer Adel Ibrahim (Tamer) appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for return of property, which he . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. RISING SUN, No. 06-30614, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of Betty B. Fletcher, Andrew J. Kleinfeld, and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges.

GOULD, Circuit Judge:
Eugene Rising Sun (”Rising Sun”) appeals two consecutive life sentences which were imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of second-degree murder. He argues that the sentencing court erred in applying the enhancement found at U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1) for vulnerable victims because of the remote location where the murders occurred and in applying the enhancement found at U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice because he threatened a witness and tried to destroy evidence before the police investigation began. Rising Sun also argues that the sentence was unreasonable. We have jurisdiction to hear the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand for resentencing. I Koren Diebert was reported missing on November 22, 2003. Five days later her body, along with that of LaFonda Big Leggins, was found in a ditch off Big Horn County Road 50A in Montana, which is part of the Crow reservation. An autopsy revealed that both young women had died from blunt force trauma to their heads caused by a heavy object. Investigations by law enforcement authorities determined that Diebert and Big Leggins were last seen in the late evening of November 18 in the company of Rising Sun and his two brothers. One witness told investigators that Rising Sun had commented to her that “he had gotten rid of some of his stuff because it was evidence.” Another witness reported seeing, on the morning of November 19, a maroon Corsica parked at an abandoned house on the Crow reservation where the Rising Sun family used to live. A third witness had linked that same car to the murders of Diebert and Big Leggins. The FBI obtained a search warrant for the abandoned house, which was executed on December 5, 2003. In a trash can out. . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. PERDOMO-ESPANA, No. 07-50232, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of Kim McLane Wardlaw, Ronald M. Gould, and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.

GOULD, Circuit Judge:
Juan Perdomo-Espana (”Perdomo”) appeals his jury conviction for one count of illegal entry into the United States as a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. In this opinion, we consider whether the defense of necessity that Perdomo advanced must be tested under an objective or subjective standard. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Determining that the necessity defense requires an objective analysis, we affirm the district court’s denial of Perdomo’s request for a jury instruction on the defense of necessity. I In the early morning hours of March 21, 2006, a United States border patrol officer found Perdomo and four others hiding in brush near the United States-Mexican border. Perdomo was wearing dark clothes. Upon discovery, Perdomo admitted that he is a Mexican citizen with no documents to allow him to enter or to remain in the United States. He was found with $598 (USD) and 155 Mexican pesos on his person. Perdomo was arrested and taken to a nearby border patrol station, where he was questioned and fingerprinted. ImmigraAlthough a foreign substance on his fingers obscured the prints, subsequent fingerprints confirmed Perdomo’s identity, showing a match to fin. . .