Ransom v. CSC Consulting, Inc., 531 U.S. 1037 (2000).

discussed Cited "see" Warner v. Astrue

C.D. Cal. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high

See Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1038 , 121 S.Ct. 628 , 148 L.Ed.2d 537 (2000) (reviewing court properly may consider materials submitted to the Appeals Council when the Appeals Council addressed the materials in denying review); Ramirez v. Shalala, 8 F.3d 1449, 1452 (9th Cir.1993) (“Ramirez”) (“although the Appeals Council declined to review the decision of the ALJ, it reached this ruling after considering the case on the merits; examining the entire record, including the additional material; and concluding that the ALJ’s decision was prop…

cited Cited "see" JONKER v. Astrue

C.D. Cal. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high

See Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1038 , 121 S.Ct. 628 , 148 L.Ed.2d 537 (2000); Kail v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 1496, 1497 (9th Cir.1984).

discussed Cited "see" Gomez v. Astrue

C.D. Cal. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high

See Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.) (holding that the district court’s decision whether to remand for further proceedings or payment of benefits is discretionary and is subject to review for abuse of discretion), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1038 , 121 S.Ct. 628 , 148 L.Ed.2d *1063 537 (2000).

cited Cited "see" ROETTGEN v. Ryan

C.D. Cal. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high

See Bains v. Cambra, 204 F.3d 964 , 971 n. 2 (9th Cir.) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1037 , 121 S.Ct. 627 , 148 L.Ed.2d 536 (2000).

discussed Cited "see" Jenkins v. Astrue

C.D. Cal. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high

See Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.) (holding that the district court’s decision whether to remand for further proceedings or payment of benefits is discretionary and is subject to review for abuse of discretion), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1038 , 121 S.Ct. 628 , 148 L.Ed.2d 537 (2000).

discussed Cited "see" Dotson v. Scribner

C.D. Cal. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high

(LD 7 at 16-17); see Bains v. Cambra, 204 *876 F.3d 964, 975 (9th Cir.) (“by deeming two errors as being merely errors under state evidentiary law, the California Court of Appeal improperly selected the Watson standard rather than the Chapman standard in evaluating those errors”), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1037 , 121 S.Ct. 627 , 148 L.Ed.2d 536 (2000).

cited Cited "see" Peake v. Chevron Shipping Co.

9th Cir. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high

See Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1175 (9th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1038 , 121 S.Ct. 628 , 148 L.Ed.2d 537 (2000).

cited Cited "see" Corey v. McNamara

D. Nev. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high

See Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir.), cert denied, 531 U.S. 1037 , 121 S.Ct. 627 , 148 L.Ed.2d 536 (2000); Cadwalder v. United States, 45 F.3d 297, 300 (9th Cir.1995).

discussed Cited "see" United States v. Morehouse

D. Me. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high

See United States v. Hicks, 217 F.3d 1038, 1048-49 (9th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1037 , 121 S.Ct. 627 , 148 L.Ed.2d 536 (2000); United States v. Yeaman, 194 F.3d 442, 457 (3d Cir.1999), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1082 , 122 S.Ct. 816 , 151 L.Ed.2d 699 (2002); United States v. Molina, 106 F.3d 1118, 1124-25 (2d Cir.1997), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1247 , 117 S.Ct. 1859 , 137 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1997).

discussed Cited "see" Saldano v. Cockrell

E.D. Tex. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high

See Bains v. Cambra, 204 F.3d 964, 974 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1037 , 121 S.Ct. 627 , 148 L.Ed.2d 536 (2000); see also Guerra, 916 F.Supp. at 636 . 2. validity of the waiver of affirmative defenses Both procedural default and harmless error are affirmative defenses which are waived by the respondent if not timely and unequivocally raised.

discussed Cited "see" Lange v. Apfel

9th Cir. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high

See Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that the court could consider additional materials that the ALJ did not have because the materials had been submitted to and addressed by the Appeals Council), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1038 , 121 S.Ct. 628 , 148 L.Ed.2d 537 (2002); Smith v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 1222, 1225 (9th Cir.1988) (holding that medical evaluations made after the expiration of a claimant's insured status are relevant to an evaluation of the pre-expiration condition). .

discussed Cited "see" Mendoza v. Stewart

9th Cir. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high

See Bains v. Cambra, 204 F.3d 964, 973-74, 977-78 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1037 , 121 S.Ct. 627 , 148 L.Ed.2d 536 (2000) (holding that although admission of threats was in error and prosecutor’s closing arguments violated defendant’s constitutional rights, these errors did not merit habeas relief in light of the overwhelming evidence showing defendant’s guilt).

discussed Cited "see" Garcia v. Ayers

9th Cir. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high

Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 638 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993); see Bains v. Cambra, 204 F.3d 964, 977 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that Brecht standard applies in all federal habeas cases under § 2254), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1037 , 121 S.Ct. 627 , 148 L.Ed.2d 536 (2000).

cited Cited "see" Walker v. Barnhart

9th Cir. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high

See Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1038 , 121 S.Ct. 628 , 148 L.Ed.2d 537 (2000).

discussed Cited "see" United States v. Peshlakai

9th Cir. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high

See United States v. Hicks, 217 F.3d 1038, 1045 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1037 , 121 S.Ct. 627 , 148 L.Ed.2d 536 (2000). (2) Peshlakai next contends that the district court erred when it imposed enhancements which had an extremely disproportionate effect upon its sentence, 1 but used a preponderance of the evidence standard in so doing.

discussed Cited "see" Booth v. Barnhart

C.D. Cal. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high

See Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.) (holding that the district court’s decision whether to remand for further proceedings or payment of benefits is discretionary and is subject to review for abuse of discretion), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1038 , 121 S.Ct. 628 , 148 L.Ed.2d 537 (2000).

discussed Cited "see" United States v. Daniel Clark Summers (2×)