Mary Helen Murguia

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit circuit Appointed by Barack Obama (Democratic) 26 signed orders read

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Martinez v. Napolitano
10-56023 · 2012-12-03
Petition for review (petitioner (Saul Martinez)) Denied

“None of these arguments survive as independent claims not inextricably linked to his order of removal. Nor does this action avoid the clear language of 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(5), which eliminates jurisdiction over such claims. ... AFFIRMED.”

Padgett v. Loventhal
10-16533 · 2013-02-11
Appeal (appellants (defendants Brian Loventhal and A. Curtis Wright)) Granted

“Therefore, we vacate the district court's award of costs and fees and remand to the district court for an explanation of how it used the lodestar method to reduce Padgett's fees and how it calculated Padgett's reduced costs. ... VACATED and REMANDED.”

Macias-Carreon v. Holder
10-70380 · 2013-05-30
Petition for review (petitioner (Ramon Macias-Carreon)) Denied

“Just as 11359 is categorically a 'controlled substance offense' for sentencing purposes ... it is categorically a crime 'relating to a controlled substance' for immigration purposes. PETITION DENIED.”

United States ex rel. Air Control Technologies, Inc. v. Pre Con Industries, Inc.
11-56230 · 2013-06-28
Appeal (appellant (Air Control Technologies, Inc.)) Granted

“The Miller Act's statute of limitations is a claim-processing rule, and ACT's complaint would have survived a 12(b)(6) motion. Therefore, the district court's order of dismissal is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. VACATED and REMANDED.”

United States v. Raya-Vaca
13-50129 · 2014-11-10
Appeal (appellant (defendant Victor Manuel Raya-Vaca)) Granted

“Because the immigration officer who conducted the proceedings failed to observe Raya-Vaca's due process rights, and because Raya-Vaca could plausibly have been granted relief in the form of withdrawal of his application for admission, we hold that his 2011 removal order is invalid and cannot serve as the predicate for his conviction under 8 U.S.C. 1326. ... REVERSED AND REMANDED.”

United States v. Hardrick
13-50122 · 2014-09-04
Appeal (appellant (defendant Lawson Hardrick, Jr.)) Denied

“The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of the uncharged child pornography videos, and the evidence at trial was sufficient to support Hardrick's convictions. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court.”

United States v. Federal Resources Corp.
12-36065 · 2014-09-16
Appeal (appellant (intervenor Federal Resources Corporation)) Denied

“Because the district court did not abuse its discretion by approving the Consent Decree, we AFFIRM.”

Curiel v. Miller
11-56949 · 2016-07-25
Appeal (appellant (petitioner Freddy Curiel)) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the district court erred in dismissing Curiel's federal habeas petition as untimely. ... REVERSED and REMANDED.”

Pacifica L 51 LLC v. New Investments Inc.
13-36194 · 2016-11-04
Appeal (appellant (Pacifica L 51, LLC, the creditor)) Granted

“We conclude that Pacifica is entitled to receive payment of the loan at the post-default interest rate. We therefore reverse the decision of the bankruptcy court and remand for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED.”

Robert Ito Farm, Inc. v. County of Maui
15-15246 · 2016-11-18
Appeal (appellant (proposed intervenor The Moms on a Mission Hui)) Denied

“But we agree with the district court that MOM Hui's appeal should have been made to this court and not the district court. AFFIRMED.”

Compassion Over Killing v. U.S. Food & Drug Administration
15-15107 · 2017-02-27
Appeal (appellants (plaintiffs Compassion Over Killing et al.)) Denied

“For the reasons stated above, the FSIS, AMS, FTC, and FDA each acted reasonably in denying Plaintiffs' rulemaking petitions. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to Defendants. AFFIRMED.”

United States v. Simon
15-10203 · 2017-06-08
Appeal (appellant (defendant Alexis Torres Simon)) Denied

“The district court correctly applied 2X1.1, the general provision for inchoate offenses, to determine Simon's sentence and relevant sentencing enhancements because 2B3.1, the Robbery provision, does not expressly cover conspiracies under the Hobbs Act. We affirm the sentence of the district court. AFFIRMED.”

Put Judge Murguia's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Murguia actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Murguia's own signed orders and cites them.