green
Positive treatment
Trending · 146 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 6×
75.4 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2009 ·
…fugitive may be permitted to offer explanatory testimony, but may not offer proof which contradicts that of the demanding country.
at p. 749
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2008 ·
…vidence that merely controverts the existence of probable cause, or raises a defense, is not admissible.
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case ·
…xtradition courts 'do not weigh conflicting evidence' in making their probable cause determinations.
at p. 750
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Jose Munoz Santos v. Linda Thomas
(19×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see, e.g."
xtradition courts 'do not weigh conflicting evidence' in making their probable cause determinations.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In Re the Extradition of Santos
(6×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
generally, evidence that explains away or completely obliterates probable cause is the only evidence admissible at an extradition hearing, whereas evidence that merely controverts the existence of probable cause, or raises a defense, is not admissible.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Pena-Bencosme v. United States Attorney's Office
fugitive may be permitted to offer explanatory testimony, but may not offer proof which contradicts that of the demanding country.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Pena-Bencosme v. United States Attorney's Office
fugitive may be permitted to offer explanatory testimony, but may not offer proof which contradicts that of the demanding country.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Man-Seok Choe v. Torres
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
vidence that merely controverts the existence of probable cause, or raises a defense, is not admissible.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Choe v. Torres
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
vidence that merely controverts the existence of probable cause, or raises a defense, is not admissible.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Estate of Decedent Lolomania Soakai v. Abdelaziz
First, a reasoned decision on an issue actually presented on appeal creates binding law, “regardless of whether [addressing the issue] was in some technical sense ‘necessary’ to our disposition of the case.” Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 751 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Prudencio Segura Castillo
See Santos, 830 F.3d at 993 7 (“an individual contesting extradition may not . . . call into question the credibility of the 8 government’s offer of proof”); Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 749 (9th Cir. 2005) 9 (en banc) (extradition courts do not weigh conflicting evidence in making their probable 10 cause determinations); In Matter of Extradition of Azizi, No. 5:14-XR-90282 PSG, 2015 11 WL 1299791 , at *3 (N.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Yassir Fazaga v. Fbi
Regardless of whether it was “in some technical sense ‘necessary,’” our definition of “valid defense” was intended to govern this case as it went forward, and so is the “law of the circuit.” See Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 751 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (per curiam). 12 In any event, we remain of the view that our earlier explanation of the “valid defense” ground for dismissal was 12 We reject the government’s invocation of the “clear error” exception to the law of the case doctrine. “[E]xceptions to the law of the case doctrine are not exceptions to our gener…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Marcia Stein v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
(5×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
As one dissenter stressed when we officially elevated dicta to binding law, “Article III judges have authority only to decide cases and controversies.” Barapind, 400 F.3d at 759 (Rymer, J., dissenting in part); see also Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Michael Jerome Files
Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 751 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Michael Jerome Files
Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 751 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gomez v. United States
Accordingly, a fugitive may not introduce evidence that contradicts the evidence 10 - OPINION AND ORDER submitted by the requesting government “[b]ecause extradition courts do not weigh conflicting evidence in making their probable cause determinations.” Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 750 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Christopher Ahn v. David M. Singer
Probable cause means a “fair probability,” given the totality of the 2 evidence, that the suspect has committed the charged crime, Garcia v. County of 3 Merced, 639 F.3d 1206, 1209 (9th Cir. 2011), and the burden of proving its existence 4 rests with the country seeking extradition, see Barapind, 400 F.3d at 747 (9th Cir. 5 2005) (“Certification of extradition is lawful only when the requesting nation has 6 demonstrated probable cause to believe the accused person is guilty of committing the 7 charged crimes.”). 8 Under the doctrine of “dual criminality,” an accused person “may b…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Poondarik Sours
Statements in a precedential Ninth Circuit decision that are “made in passing, without analysis, are not binding precedent.”77 Conversely, a statement is circuit law if an issue was “presented for review,” addressed by the court, and decided in an opinion joined in relevant party by a majority of the panel, all regardless of whether it was in some technical sense “necessary” to the disposition.78 Both Tejeda and the U.S. trustee suggest that the Ninth Circuit’s statement that “at a minimum, ‘cause’ means excusable neglect” means that the existence of excusable neglect alw…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Mason Howard Harkness
(2×)
The 19 Supreme Court stated in Benson v. McMahon: 20 [T]he proceeding before the commissioner is not to be regarded as in the 21 nature of a final trial by which the prisoner could be convicted or 22 acquitted of the crime charged against him, but rather of the character of 23 those preliminary examinations which take place every day in this 24 country before an examining or committing magistrate for the purpose 25 of determining whether a case is made out which will justify the holding 26 27 7 In this case, there is no dispute that the person appearing before the Court is the same “Mason Ho…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Association Des Eleveurs v. Rob Bonta
The dormant Commerce Clause stems from our understanding that the Commerce Clause “implicitly preempt[s] state laws that regulate commerce in a manner that is disruptive to economic activities in the nation as a 2 Moreover, Canards II’s decision is law of the circuit, “regardless of whether it was in some technical sense ‘necessary’ to our disposition of the case.” See Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 751 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). 3 The dissent also argues that we should go beyond the legislative text to assume California is trying to ban foie gras without explicitly doing so.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Association Des Eleveurs v. Rob Bonta
The dormant Commerce Clause stems from our understanding that the Commerce Clause “implicitly preempt[s] state laws that regulate commerce in a manner that is disruptive to economic activities in the nation as a 2 Moreover, Canards II’s decision is law of the circuit, “regardless of whether it was in some technical sense ‘necessary’ to our disposition of the case.” See Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 751 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). 3 The dissent also argues that we should go beyond the legislative text to assume California is trying to ban foie gras without explicitly doing so.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rattler Holdings, LLC v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
The Ninth Circuit defines a holding as a statement “germane to the eventual resolution of the case, . . . resolve[d] . . . after reasoned consideration in a published opinion.” United States v. Johnson, 256 F.3d 895, 914 (9th Cir. 2001) (Kozinski, C.J., concurring); Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 751 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (adopting Judge Kozinski’s definition in the majority opinion).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wilkins v. United States
The Ninth Circuit has defined a holding as a statement “germane to the eventual resolution of the case, . . . resolve[d] ... after reasoned consideration in a published opinion.” United States v. Johnson, 256 F.3d 895, 914 (9th Cir. 2001) (Kozinski, C.J., concurring); Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 751 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (adopting Judge Kozinski’s definition in the majority opinion); see also Ryan S. Killian, Dicta and the Rule of Law, 2013 Pepp.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Venckiene v. United States
Ordinola , 478 F.3d 588 at 599 ("uprising" existed where "Peruvian government and the Shining Path were engaged in a violent struggle for control of the country" and "approximately 50 percent of Peruvian territory and approximately 65 percent of the country's population was under a state of national emergency") (internal citation omitted); Barapind , 400 F.3d at 750 (uprising existed where "tens of thousands of deaths and casualties resulted between the mid-1980s and early 1990s as Sikh nationalists clashed with government officers and sympathizers in Punjab").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Venckiene v. United States of America
(2×)
Holt, 779 F.3d 233, 240 (4th Cir. 2015); Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 755 (9th Cir. 2005); Quinn v. Robinson, 783 F.2d 776, 794 (9th Cir. 1986). > Whether the offenses charged qualify as “political offenses” is a distinct issue from whether the request itself is politically motivated.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Roberto Solorio-Ruiz v. Jefferson Sessions
Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 751 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Struga
Further, a defendant is not permitted to introduce evidence that merely contradicts the proofs submitted by the requesting country, although he or she may submit evidence “that explains away or completely obliterates probable cause.... ” Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 749 (9th Cir. 2005)(en banc), quoting Mainero v. Gregg, 164 F.3d 1199, 1207, n.7 (9th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kulvir Barapind v. Gov't of the Rep. of India
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Brit.-U.S., art. 9, Dec. 22, 1931, 47 Stat. 2122 .1 On September 18, 1997, “[t]he United States filed a complaint on India’s behalf” in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California and “requested a warrant to bring Barapind before an extradition court for a hearing to determine extraditability.” Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Barapind v. Government of the Republic of India
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Brit,-U.S., art. 9, Dec. 22, 1931, 47 Stat. 2122 . 1 On September 18, 1997, “[t]he United States filed a complaint on India’s behalf’ in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California and “requested a warrant to bring Barapind before an extradition court for a hearing to determine extraditability.” Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 2005).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Starla Rollins v. Dignity Health
Cf. Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 750-51 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (holding that an issue decided by a panel majority constitutes a holding of the circuit).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
National Federation of the Blind v. United Airlines Inc.
(9×)
also: Cited "see"
Cir. 1943). 7 Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744 , 750–51 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (per curiam). 8 Id. at 751 (footnote omitted). 46 NAT’L FED.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Jose Santos v. Linda Thomas
(7×)
also: Cited "see"
Relying on Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 749 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (per curiam), the extradition court stated: recantation evidence is contradictory evidence, and ... the complex, nuanced fact-intensive inquiry into the compara *1024 tive reliability of inculpatory statements and recantations, including the circumstances under which the statements were obtained, is appropriately reserved for determination by courts of the requesting state, which have access to the full panoply of evidence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re the Extradition of Mathison
“Generally, evidence that explains away or completely obliterates probable cause is the only evidence admissible at an extradition hearing, whereas evidence that merely controverts the existence of probable cause, or raises a defense, is not admissible.” Mainero v. Gregg, 164 F.3d 1199 , 1207 n. 7 (9th Cir. 1999), superseded by statute on other grounds, Cornejo-Barreto v. Seifert, 218 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir.2000), citing Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U.S. 447, 457-58 , 33 S.Ct. 945 , 57 L.Ed. 1274 (1913); Barapind v. Eno moto, 400 F.3d 744, 749 (9th Cir.2005) (same).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hector Ayala v. Robert Wong
Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 750-51 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ayala v. Wong
Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 750-51 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Henry Anekwu
We have “described discussions that are unnecessary to a decision as dicta.” Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 759 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hector Ayala v. Robert Wong
Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 750-51 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Olakunle Oshodi v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 750-51 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (per curiam). 5 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Nunez-Garrido
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See, e.g., Bingham, 241 U.S. at 517 , 36 S.Ct. 634 (“a construction of [the extradition statute and treaties] that would require the demanding government to send its citizens to another country to institute legal proceedings would defeat the whole object of the treaty”); Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 750 (9th Cir.2005) (“extradition courts do not weigh conflicting evidence in making their probable cause determinations”) (alteration omitted; emphasis supplied).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re the Extradition of Handanovic
The function of the magistrate judge at the extradition hearing is “to determine whether there is competent evidence to justify holding the accused to await trial, and not to determine whether evidence is sufficient to justify a conviction.” Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 752 (9th Cir.2005) (quotation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Martinez v. Marshall
First, the Ninth Circuit, "sitting en banc, [has] held that a discussion in a published opinion from this court is binding circuit law 'regardless of whether it was in some technical sense necessary to [the] disposition of the case.’ ” United States v. Bond, 552 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Barapind v. Enomolo, 400 F.3d 744, 750-51 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc); internal quotation marks omitted); see also in re Tippett, 542 F.3d 684, 691-92 (9th Cir.2008) (" ‘[W]here a panel confronts an issue germane to the eventual resolution of the case, and resolves it after reasoned considerat…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thakore v. Universal MacHine Co. of Pottstown, Inc.
In Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 746-48 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), the court .of appeals scolded the lower court for declining to follow what it believed was a circuit dictum that it believed was wrong: "The [lower court] operated under a mistaken understanding of what constitutes circuit law .... [0]ur articulation in [Quinn v. Robinson, 783 F.2d 776 (9th Cir.1986) ] ... became law of the circuit, regardless of whether it was in some technical sense 'necessary' to our disposition of the case.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Prasoprat v. Benov
The Ninth Circuit, “sitting en banc, ... ha[s] held that a discussion in a published opinion from this court is binding circuit law ‘regardless of whether it was in some technical sense “necessary” to [the] disposition of the case.’ ” 4 United States v. Bond, 552 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 750-51 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (per curiam)); see also In re Tippett, 542 F.3d 684, 691-92 (9th Cir.2008) (“ ‘[W]here a panel confronts an issue germane to the eventual resolution of the case, and resolves it after reasoned consideration in a p…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Bond
However, sitting en bane, we have held that a discussion in a published opinion from this court is binding circuit law “regardless of whether it was in some technical sense ‘necessary’ to [the] disposition of the case.” Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 750-51 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Polikarpovas v. Stolic
Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 752 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marmolejo-Campos v. Gonzales
Indeed, even if we read the statement that “the statute is divisible” to suggest that driving drunk without a license involves moral turpitude, that question “was not presented for review, was not given reasoned consideration, and was unnecessary for the decision, [therefore] it is not binding precedent.” Sinotes-Cruz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir.2006) (citing Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 750-51 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (per curiam)); see also Best Life Assurance Co. of Ca. v. Comm’r, 281 F.3d 828, 834 (9th Cir.2002) (defining dictum as “a statement made during t…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marmolejo-Campos v. Gonzales
Indeed, even if we read the statement that “the statute is divisible” to suggest that driving drunk without a license involves moral turpitude, that question “was not pre- sented for review, was not given reasoned consideration, and was unnecessary for the decision, [therefore] it is not binding precedent.” Sinotes-Cruz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 750-51 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (per curiam)); see also Best Life Assurance Co. of Ca. v. Comm’r, 281 F.3d 828, 834 (9th Cir. 2002) (defining dictum as “a statement made dur…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ordinola v. Hackman
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
We disagree because focusing so intently on the presence of an uprising will push courts dangerously close to protecting "isolated acts of social vio- lence undertaken for personal reasons . . . simply because they occurred during a time of political upheaval, a result we think the political offense exception was not meant to produce." Eain v. Wilkes, 641 F.2d 504, 521 (7th Cir. 1981). 16 Recently, Judge Rymer argued in dissent that an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit should overrule Quinn and "instead follow the approach articulated by the Supreme Court in Ornelas." Barapind v. Enomoto, 400…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Wilmer Yarleque Ordinola v. John Hackman, Acting United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Virginia
(6×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Recently, Judge Rymer argued in dissent that an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit should overrule Quinn and "instead follow the approach articulated by the Supreme Court in Ornelas." Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 753 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (Rymer, J., dissenting).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re the Extradition of Ang
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See, e.g., Quinn v. Robinson, 783 F.2d 776, 806 (9th Cir.1986); Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 750-51 (9th Cir.2005); Vo v. Benov, 447 F.3d 1235, 1241 (9th Cir.2006).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gumercindo Salazar-Gonzalez
(2×)
We recently confirmed in an en banc decision that a panel creates circuit law when it "addresse[s][an] issue and decide[s] it in an opinion joined in relevant part by the majority of the panel.” Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 750-51 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Salazar-Gonzalez
The gov- ernment’s argument that Rivera-Sillas’ discussion of knowing entry must be either dictum or incorrect lacks merit.2 It is true that we have addressed the voluntariness element of the § 1326 crime on many occasions and that Rivera-Sillas is the first case to address plainly the question of knowledge.3 2 We recently confirmed in an en banc decision that a panel creates cir- cuit law when it “addresse[s] [an] issue and decide[s] it in an opinion joined in relevant part by the majority of the panel.” Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 750-51 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Van Duc Vo, A/K/A Vo Van Duc, Nguyen Tran Van and Trang Van Nguyen v. Michael L. Benov, Warden
We explained the requirements of the incidence test in Quinn, id. at 794-811, which this court, sitting en banc, recently reaffirmed in Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 750-51 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (per curiam).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Maria Angelica Membreno
v.
Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General
v.
Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General
03-71214.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Mar 8, 2005.
400 F.3d 744
Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (2)
Maria Angelica MEMBRENO, Petitioner,
v.
Alberto GONZALES,[*] Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-71214.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Filed March 8, 2005.
Shan D. Potts, Berke Law Offices, Los Angeles, CA, for petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, John J. Andre, Esq., and Andrew C. MacLachlan, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge.
ORDER
1
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused 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.
Notes:
*
Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2)