green
Positive treatment
Trending · 67 recent citers
Circuit Split
Quoted verbatim 2×
48.5 score
“licenses and certification require- ments-which commonly are justified on grounds of public health and safety-cover many activities, including quite ordinary ones like driving a car.”
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Joel Galarza v. One Call Claims, LLC
licenses and certification require- ments-which commonly are justified on grounds of public health and safety-cover many activities, including quite ordinary ones like driving a car.
examined
Cited "but see"
United States v. Ronald Snook
(8×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
See United States v. Gonzalez-Alvarez, 277 F.3d 73, 81-82 (1st Cir.2002) (abuse-of-trust increase applied to dairy farmer for not complying with regulations); United States v. White, 270 F.3d 356, 372-73 (6th Cir.2001) (employee at water-treatment plant); United States v. Turner, 102 F.3d 1350, 1360 (4th Cir.1996) (owners and operators of coal mine); but see Technic, 314 F.3d at 1049-52 (not applied to private contractor hired to clean up asbestos).
examined
Cited "but see"
United States v. Snook, Ronald
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
See United States v. Gonzalez-Alvarez, 277 F.3d 73, 81-82 (1st Cir. 2002) (abuse-of-trust increase applied to dairy farmer for not complying with regulations); United States v. White, 270 F.3d 356, 372-73 (6th Cir. 2001) (employee at water-treatment plant); United States v. Turner, 102 F.3d 1350, 1360 (4th Cir. 1996) (owners and operators of coal mine); but see Technic, 314 F.3d at 1049-52 (not applied to private contractor hired to clean up asbes- tos).
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
D. Davis Javitz v. Luzerne County
the use of the phrase 'such as' implies that the ensuing list is not exhaustive, but is only illustrative.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People of Guam v. Joseph Marc Thomas Duenas Castro, Jr., aka Joseph Marc Castro, Jr., aka Joseph Mark Thomas Duenas Castro Jr., aka Joseph Mark Castro, Jr., aka Joseph M.T.D. Castro, aka Joey
People v. Castro, 2025 Guam 9 , Opinion Page 21 of 32 [45] The second part of the analysis examines “whether ‘the conduct underlying each violation involves a separate and distinct act.’” Id. ¶ 16 (quoting United States v. Technic Servs., Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1046 (9th Cir. 2002), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Contreras, 593 F.3d 1135, 1136 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Indie Caps LLC v. Ackerman
See 1 United States v. Molina, 596 F.3d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 2010); United States v. Technic 2 Servs., Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1045 (9th Cir. 2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Polakoff v. Knudsen
“An indictment is not multiplicitous merely because it charges more than one violation of the same statute based on related conduct; instead, a defendant can be convicted of multiple violations of the same statute if the conduct underlying each violation involves a separate and distinct act.” United States v. Technic Serv., Inc., 314 F. 3d 1031, 1046 (9" Cir. 2002), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Contreras, 593 F. 3d 1135 (9" Cir. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
USA V. FOREST KIRST
In United States v. Technic Services., Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1037 (9th Cir. 2002), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Contreras, 593 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc), the Environmental Protection Agency investigated Technic Services, Inc. (“TSI”) for possible violations of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Krause v. Krause
(2×)
Petitioner lists the 21 express exceptions listed in FRE 408 (“proving a witness's bias or prejudice, negating a 22 contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or 23 prosecution”), but glosses over the fact that the Rule’s listing of these exceptions and “use of the 24 phrase ‘such as’ implies that the ensuing list is not exhaustive, but is only illustrative.” United 25 States v. Technic Servs., Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1045 (9th Cir. 2002), overruled on other grounds 26 by United States v. Contreras, 593 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2010); Rhoades v. …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Nikolaos Vastardis
To convict under this section, the Government must establish: “(1) that there was an agency proceeding; (2) that the defendant was aware of that proceeding; and (3) that the defendant intentionally endeavored corruptly to influence, obstruct or impede the pending proceeding.”68 The term “proceeding” in the context of § 1505 is construed broadly and encompasses agency investigative activities—including an agency’s “search for the true facts.”69 Count 3 charged that, during the Coast Guard’s inspection of the ship’s oil filtration equipment, Vastardis “ran the Oil Content …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Henry Cervantes
The district court stated that it found Douglas’s eyewitness testimony to be “quite convincing[]” and that “there’s not any doubt in my mind that [Henry] committed those acts.” Cf. United States v. Technic Servs., Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1047 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that the district court’s comment that “it had ‘no doubt’” about sentencing enhancements confirmed that clear-and-convincing-evidence standard was met), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Contreras, 593 F.3d 1135, 1136 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Carlos Romero-Coriche
See, e.g., United States v. Guerrero, 921 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam); United States v. Technic Servs., Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2002), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Contreras, 593 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (per curiam). 2 rights.” United States v. Depue, 912 F.3d 1227, 1232 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Juan Chilaca
“An indictment is not multiplicitous merely because it charges more than one violation of the same statute based on related conduct; instead, a defendant can be convicted of multiple violations of the same statute if the conduct underlying each violation involves a separate and distinct act.” United States v. Technic Servs., Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1046 (9th Cir. 2002), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Contreras, 593 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Neil A. Thomsen
Thomsen is correct that the only basis on which the probation officer recommended the two-level enhancement for “abuse of trust” pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 (for both groups of offenses) was that “the defendant was a tax preparer, who was entrusted with the personal information of others, which he used for his own financial gain,” which the probation officer believed “constitute^] an abuse of a position of trust.” We have repeatedly held that, “ ‘[t]o support the abuse of trust enhancement, “a position of trust ... must be established from the perspective of the victim.” …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Farrell
(ECF 26 at 8.) It has, indeed, been said that "[t]he Clean Water Act is public-welfare legislation and the victims of violations are the public,” United States v. Snook, 366 F.3d 439, 445 (7th Cir.2004), (citing United States v. Technic Servs,, Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1049 (9th Cir.2002)), albeit not in interpretation of the CVRA.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. LUCIANA HARMATH
From the point of view of the victim, the United States government, United States v. Technic Servs., Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1048 (9th Cir. 2002), overruled in part on other grounds by United States v. Contreras, 593 F.3d 1135, 1136 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (per curiam), adopting in part United States v. Contreras, 581 F.3d 1163 , 1168 n.5 (9th Cir. 2009), Jagprit Sekhon did not "exercise substantial discretionary judgment that is ordinarily given considerable deference," Contreras, 593 F.3d at 1136 , adopting 581 F.3d at 1168 n.5 (internal quotation marks omitted).2 Unlike the clients of a fina…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Tonawanda Coke Corp.
(2×)
United States v. Snook, 366 F.3d 439, 446 (7th Cir.2004); United States v. Technic Servs., 314 F.3d 1031, 1048 (9th Cir.2002), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Contreras, 593 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir.2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. James Mathis
Moreover, we agree with the Ninth Circuit that direct evidence of a substance’s release into the environment is not necessary; rather, “in most cases reasonable inferences from available evidence will suffice to support a conclusion that illegal acts resulted in contamination.” United States v. Technic Servs., Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1047 (9th Cir. 2002), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Contreras, 593 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. James Mathis
Moreover, we agree with the Ninth Circuit that direct evidence of a substance’s release into the environment is not necessary; rather, “in most cases reasonable inferences from available evidence will suffice to support a conclusion that illegal acts resulted in contamination.” United States v. Technic Servs., Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1047 (9th Cir.2002), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Contreras, 593 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir.2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Damien Zepeda
(2×)
We have previously held that “ ‘[stipulations freely and voluntarily entered into in criminal trials are as binding and enforceable as those entered into in civil actions.’” Id. at 1169 (quoting United States v. Technic Servs., 314 F.3d 1031, 1045 (9th Cir.2002) (alteration in original)). “ ‘[Stipulations serve both judicial economy and the convenience of the parties, [and] courts will enforce them absent indications of involuntary or uninformed consent.’ ” Id. (quoting CDN Inc. v. Rapes, 197 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1999) (alterations in original)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Damien Zepeda
(2×)
We have previously held that “‘[s]tipulations freely and voluntarily entered into in criminal trials are as binding and enforceable as those entered into in civil actions.’” Id. at 1169 (quoting United States v. Technic Servs., 314 F.3d 1031, 1045 (9th Cir. 2002) (alteration in original)). “‘[S]tipulations serve both judicial economy and the convenience of the parties, [and] courts will enforce them absent indications of involuntary or uninformed consent.’” Id. (quoting CDN Inc. v. Kapes, 197 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir. 1999) (alterations in original)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Joseph Fuentes
Because Fuentes freely and voluntarily stipulated to the admissibility of the polygraph, he cannot later complain about its admissibility, see United States v. Technic Servs., Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1045 (9th Cir.2002), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Contreras, 593 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc) (per curiam); accordingly, objection to the admission of the results would have been futile, see Shah v. United States, 878 F.2d 1156, 1162 (9th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Evans
“To support the abuse of trust enhancement, ‘a position of trust ... must be established from the perspective of the victim.’ ” United States v. Technic Servs., Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1048 (9th Cir.2002), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Contreras, 593 F.3d 1135, 1136 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc) (per curiam) (alteration in original) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jesus Molina
This court has held that “[s]tipulations freely and voluntarily entered into in criminal trials are as binding and enforceable as those entered into in civil actions.” United States v. Technic Servs., Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1045 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Gwaltney, 790 F.2d 1378, 1386 (9th Cir. 1986)). “[S]tipulations serve both judicial economy and the convenience of the parties, [and] courts will enforce them absent indications of involuntary or uninformed consent.” CDN Inc. v. Kapes, 197 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Molina
This court has held that “[stipulations freely and voluntarily entered into in criminal trials are as binding and enforceable as those entered into in civil actions.” United States v. Technic Sens., Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1045 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Gwaltney, 790 F.2d 1378, 1386 (9th Cir.1986)). “[Stipulations serve both judicial economy and the convenience of the parties, [and] courts will enforce them absent indications of involuntary or uninformed consent.” CDN Inc. v. Kapes, 197 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Contreras
(2×)
We overrule United States v. Peyton, 353 F.3d 1080, 1090-91 (9th Cir.2003); United States v. Brickey, 289 F.3d 1144, 1153-55 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Hoskins, 282 F.3d 772, 778-79 (9th Cir. 2002); United States v. Technic Servs., Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1048-49 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Medrano, 241 F.3d 740, 746 (9th Cir.2001); United States v. Velez, 185 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir.1999); United States v. Isaacson, 155 F.3d 1083, 1084-86 (9th Cir.1998); United States v. Oplinger, 150 F.3d 1061, 1068-70 (9th Cir.1998); United States v. Hill, 915 F.2d 502, 506 (9th Cir.1990), and any …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Contreras
We overrule United States v. Peyton, 353 F.3d 1080, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2003); United States v. Brickey, 289 F.3d 1144, 1153-55 (9th Cir. 2002); United States v. Hoskins, 282 F.3d 772, 778-79 (9th Cir. 2002); United States v. Technic Servs., Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1048-49 (9th Cir. 2002); United States v. Medrano, 241 F.3d 740, 746 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Velez, 185 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 1999); United States v. Isaacson, 155 F.3d 1083, 1084-86 (9th Cir. 1998); United States v. Oplinger, 150 F.3d 1061, 1068-70 (9th Cir. 1998); United States v. Hill, 915 F.2d 502, 506 (9th Cir. 1990), …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sterling Savings Bank v. Citadel Development Co.
Rhoades v. Avon Products, Inc., 504 F.3d 1151 , 1162 n. 9 (9th Cir.2007) (citing United States v. Technic Services, Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1045 (9th Cir.2002)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Co.
(8×)
We have described those rulings and circumstances in Ferrin, Bogas, Sellers, and Goldfaden, supra. The other pertinent decisions are: United States v. Ortiz, 427 F.3d 1278, 1280-81, 1285-86 (10th Cir.2005) (polluted wastewater discharged into storm drains via toilet and pumping onto ground); United States v. Rubenstein, 403 F.3d 93, 97, 99-100 (2d Cir.2005) (exposed asbestos hanging from pipes and in open boxes); Perez, 366 F.3d at 1180-83 (pollutants dumped by truck into wetlands); United States v. Kuhn, 345 F.3d 431, 433, 438 (6th Cir.2003) (sewage sludge dumped into ditch); United States v.…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Bp Products North America Inc.
In 2002, in United States v. Technic Servs., Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1037, 1053 (9th Cir.2002), the Ninth Circuit affirmed the organizational defendant's conviction under § 7413(c)(1) and other statutes and a $600,000 fine and five years’ probation.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rhodes v. Avon Products, Inc.
The text of the rule is clear: evidence from settlement negotia- tions may not be considered in court “when offered to prove liability for, invalidity of, or amount of a claim that was dis- puted as to validity or amount, or to impeach through a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction.” Rule 408, however, does not bar such evidence when “offered for [other] purposes . . . [such as] proving a witness’s bias or prejudice.” See, e.g., United States v. Technic Servs., Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1045 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that evidence from settlement negoti- ations was admissible to p…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rhoades v. Avon Products, Inc.
The text of the rule is clear: evidence from settlement negotiations may not be considered in court “when offered to prove liability for, invalidity of, or amount of a claim that ivas disputed as to validity or amount, or to impeach through a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction.” Rule 408, however, does not bar such evidence when “offered for [other] purposes ... [such as] proving a witness’s bias or prejudice.” See, e.g., United States v. Technic Servs., Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1045 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that evidence from settlement negotiations was admissible to prove “…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Chavez-Amaro
“Stipulations freely and voluntarily entered into in criminal trials are as binding and enforceable as those entered into in civil actions.” United States v. Gwaltney, 790 F.2d 1378, 1386 (9th Cir.1986). “[A] defendant who has stipulated to the admission of evidence cannot later complain about its admissibility ... [unless the] stipulation was involuntary.” United States v. Technic Servs., 314 F.3d 1031, 1045 (9th Cir.2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Arreola
United States v. Technic Servs., 314 F.3d 1031, 1040 (9th Cir.2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jose Arreola
United States v. Technic Servs., 314 F.3d 1031, 1040 (9th Cir.2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Arreola
United States v. Technic Servs., 314 F.3d 1031, 1040 (9th Cir. 2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lentz
As one court put it, “[stipulations freely and voluntarily entered into in criminal trials are as binding and enforceable as those entered into in civil actions.” United States v. Technic Services, Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1045 (9th Cir.2002) (citing United States v. Gwaltney, 790 F.2d 1378, 1386 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1104 , 107 S.Ct. 1337 , 94 L.Ed.2d 187 (1987)); see also United States v. Shapiro, 868 F.2d 1125, 1127 (9th Cir.1989) (same).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Green v. Baca
“The use of the phrase ‘such as’ implies that the ensuing list is not exhaustive, but is only illustrative.” United States v. Technic Servs., Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1045 (9th Cir.2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Angel Garcia-Gomez
United States v. Technic Servs., Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1038 (9th Cir.2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Moemberg
United States v. Technic Servs., Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1038 (9th Cir.2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Agasiva v. American Samoa Government
United States v. Technic Serv,, Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1038 (9th Cir. 2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Roberto Raul Carreno
United States v. Technic Servs., Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1038 (9th Cir.2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Rigoberto Alvarado-Guizar, True Name Rigoberto Guizar-Alvarado
United States v. Technic Servs., Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1038 (9th Cir.2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lence
Finally, a “defendant who has stipulated to the admission of evidence cannot later complain about its admissibility.” United States v. Technic Servs., Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1045 (9th Cir.2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Knopfle
Government’s Cross-Appeal A. Downward Adjustment for Acceptance of Responsibility In its cross-appeal, the government argues that the district court erred by granting Knopfle a two-level downward adjustment under United States Sentencing Guideline § 3E1.1 for acceptance of responsibility. “[W]e review for abuse of discretion the district court’s application of the sentencing guidelines to the facts.” United States v. Technic Servs., Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1038 (9th Cir.2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Espinoza-Garcia
United States v. Technic Servs., Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1038 (9th Cir.2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. City of Lodi, Cal.
“The use of the phrase ‘such as’ [in Rule 408] implies that the ensuing list is not exhaustive, but is only illustrative.” United States v. Technic Servs., Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1045 (9th Cir.2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Chance Rearden
The interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines is reviewed de novo, United States v. Garcia, 323 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir.2003); application of the Guidelines to the facts of a particular case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, United States v. Technic Servs., Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1038 (9th Cir.2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Davis
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See United States v. Technic Servs., 314 F.3d 1031 , 1045 (9th Cir.2002); Carney v. American Univ., 151 F.3d 1090, 1095-96 (D.C.Cir. 1998).
discussed
Cited "see"
Nibbs v. People
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Technic Services, 314 F.3d at 1045 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Steven Gene CHASE, Defendant-Appellant
v.
Steven Gene CHASE, Defendant-Appellant
01-30200.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Dec 20, 2002.
Jeffrey J. Kent, Asst. U.S. Atty., Eugene, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Brett A. Purtzer, Tacoma, WA for Defendant-Appellant.
Schroeder.
Published
ORDER
Upon the vote of a majority of nonre-cused regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit, except to the extent adopted ’by the en banc court.