Ronald Murray Gould

How Judge Gould rules, drawn from 38 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Position
circuit
Appointed by
Bill Clinton (Democratic)
Commissioned
1999-11-22
Education
University of Pennsylvania (B.S., 1968); University of Michigan Law School (J.D., 1973)
Signed orders read
38

How Judge Gould decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In a civil RICO case, Gould applied the provision's broad reference to "no person" to individual claims as well as class actions. Even assuming the legislative history favored a narrower rule, it could not displace the statute's unambiguous text.

“Powers's argument fails because legislative history, even when clear, may not overcome or displace the textual mandate of a statute.”

In a retirement-benefits overpayment case, Gould assessed fault in light of the agency's repeated notices that it had the claimant's outside earnings and had recalculated his benefit. Once those communications made continued reliance reasonable, the claimant could not be charged with the agency's later overpayments.

“However, when the RRB’s continuous and repeated errors and communications make an individual’s inaction in reporting reasonable, the RRB cannot hold that individual liable for the RRB’s own errors.”

In reviewing handcuffing during a traffic stop, Gould evaluated the intrusion against concrete safety conditions: an unsecured visible gun, an untruthful response about it, nearby crowds, and bicycle officers without a patrol car. Those combined facts justified restraints while the investigation continued without converting the stop into an arrest.

“Considering the totality of the circumstances, we hold that the officers had a sufficient and reasonable basis to fear for their safety, justifying their decision to handcuff In so that their safety was assured during their investigation.”

Cautions

In an unlawful-reentry prosecution, Gould examined the validity of each removal used as a predicate. An erroneous in absentia removal that deprived a lawful permanent resident of a meaningful opportunity to contest it also infected a later expedited removal that depended on the resulting loss of status.

“A person should not be stripped of the important legal entitlements that come with lawful permanent resident status through a legally erroneous decision that he or she had no meaningful opportunity to contest.”

In an asylum credibility case, Gould tested each asserted inconsistency against the actual testimony and supporting documents. The agency could not manufacture a conflict, ignore corroborating evidence, or affirm a finding the immigration judge had not made.

“By ignoring documents consistent with Barseghyan’s testimony, the IJ did not consider ‘the totality of the circumstances’ when making its adverse credibility determination.”

Signed rulings

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

United States v. Plouffe
05-30111 · 2006-01-18
Appeal (appellant (defendant Christopher Ray Plouffe)) Denied

“We conclude that Plouffe's 71-month sentence is reasonable, and we will not disturb the discretion of the sentencing court. ... AFFIRMED.”

Powers v. Wells Fargo Bank NA
04-56084 · 2006-03-03
Appeal (appellants (plaintiffs Alfred Powers et al.)) Denied

“Basing our decision on the unambiguous text of the statute, we hold that Section 1964(c) bars RICO actions alleging securities fraud, even when such actions are not class actions.”

Paulson v. City of San Diego
06-55769 · 2007-01-11
Appeal (appellant (City of San Diego)) Moot / procedural

“Accordingly, the May 3, 2006 order is no longer enforceable, and the appeal is DISMISSED as moot. ... we REMAND under 28 U.S.C. 2106 to the district court with instructions to VACATE the May 3, 2006 order to enforce the 1991 injunction.”

Le v. Astrue
06-56804 · 2008-06-24
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff Minh Q. Le)) Denied

“Le timely appealed the denial of EAJA fees, and we now affirm.”

Affiliated FM Insurance Co. v. LTK Consulting Services, Inc.
07-35696 · 2010-12-07
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff Affiliated FM Insurance Co.)) Granted

“We reverse the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent with the decision of the Washington State Supreme Court. REVERSED AND REMANDED.”

Bojnoordi v. Holder
10-73588 · 2014-07-07
Petition for review (petitioner (Gholamreza Bojnoordi)) Denied

“We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a), and we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated below.”

Abbott v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
12-35801 · 2014-10-27
Appeal (appellant (petitioner Shane Aaron Abbott)) Granted in part

“The panel dismissed renewed claims, and, as to new contentions raised after the district court's decision on limited remand, reversed the district court and remanded a case in which Shane Abbott filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking to compel the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to allow him into the Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP).”

United States v. Augare
14-30131 · 2015-09-09
Appeal (appellant (defendant Delyle Shanny Augare)) Denied

“For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it applied the 'sophisticated means' enhancement to Augare's offense conduct.”

Talaie v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
13-56314 · 2015-12-14
Appeal (appellants (plaintiffs Mohammad Ali Talaie and Rosa W. Talaie)) Denied

“For the reasons that follow, we hold that 15 U.S.C. 1641(g) does not apply retroactively.”

Laborin v. Berryhill
15-15776 · 2017-08-16
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff Bernard Laborin)) Granted

“Because the ALJ also did not give clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Laborin's symptom testimony, and for the reasons provided in the concurrently filed memorandum disposition, we reverse and remand.”

Davies v. Benov
15-17256 · 2017-05-17
Appeal (appellant (petitioner Matthew Rowan Davies)) Denied

“Because Davies voluntarily waived his right to bring this challenge through the collateral-attack waiver provision of his plea agreement, we affirm the denial of his habeas corpus petition.”

United States v. Ochoa-Oregel
16-50413 · 2018-08-02
Appeal (appellant (defendant Francisco Ochoa-Oregel)) Granted

“For the reasons stated below, we hold that both the 2008 and 2011 removal orders were fundamentally unfair, and that neither can serve as a predicate removal for purposes of 1326.”

Draft for Judge Gould with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Gould, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Gould's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace