Here is the opinion.
An excerpt:
As the district court correctly concluded, it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the Pakootas and Michel claims for penalties for the 892 days of noncompliance with the unilateral administrative order, and properly dismissed their claims.
Here is the Ninth Circuit’s unpublished opinion in Conitz v. Teck Alaska and NANA Corp.
Here are the materials:
Here is the opinion.
An excerpt:
Michael Tsosie entered into a plea agreement with the government and pleaded guilty to one count of abusive sexual contact in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(1). Pursuant to the plea agreement, the District Court sentenced Tsosie to eighteen months of imprisonment, a sentence well below the Guidelines range of 97 to 121 months. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). At the sentencing hearing, the victim’s counsel urged the District Court to order Tsosie to pay $31,994 in restitution to the victim’s mother to cover costs she incurred in making a series of trips between her home and the victim’s boarding school, 150 miles away. The District Court ordered the restitution.
Tsosie appeals the restitution order, arguing (1) that the mother’s travel expenses were not “incurred by the victim” and were therefore not subject to restitution under the applicable statute, and, in the alternative, (2) that the restitution award was issued in violation of the procedural and evidentiary requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3664. We agree with the second but not the first of these arguments. We also hold that Tsosie has not waived his right to appeal the restitution order.
Judge Bea partially dissented, writing:
In Part IV, however, the majority holds the district court erred in awarding restitution based on a detailed spreadsheet from the victim’s mother to which the defendant never objected, save for a vague statement by defense counsel that “sufficient evidence ha[d] [not] been provided.” To this holding, I respectfully dissent.
Here is the order.
Here is the unpublished opinion in United States v. Yellow Mule.
Here is today’s opinion in United States v. Arizona.
Here is the Tohono O’odham Nation’s amicus brief in a related case.
… over Judge W. Fletcher’s “emphatic[]” dissent.
Here is the opinion in Karuk Tribe v. USFS.
An excerpt from the majority opinion:
The mining laws provide miners like The New 49’erswith the “right, not the mere privilege” to prospect for goldin the Klamath River and its tributaries. We therefore find itis most accurate to say that the mining laws, not the USFS,authorize the mining activities at issue here. The USFS hasadopted a simple review process to sort between those miningactivities it will regulate in order to conserve forest resources,and those activities it will not regulate because such regulation would be unnecessary and unduly interfere with miningrights. The USFS’s limited and internal review of an NOI forthe purpose of confirming that the miner does not need to submit a Plan for approval (because the activities are unlikely tocause any significant disturbance of the forest or river) is anagency decision not to regulate legal private conduct. In otherwords, the USFS’s decision at issue results in agency inaction, not agency action.
And from Judge Fletcher’s dissent:
The Forest Service had several available choices. It couldhave consulted under Section 7 when it promulgated the regulation for dredge mining under NOIs. That is, it could haveconsulted when it set the threshold criterion for an NOI asmining that “might cause significant disturbance of surfaceresources” including fisheries habitat. Or it could have consulted under Section 7 when it formulated habitat-protectivecriteria for approving NOIs. That is, it could have consultedwhen District Ranger Vandiver formulated his criteria forapproving the NOIs for the Happy Camp District. Or, finally, in the absence of criteria such as those formulated for theHappy Camp District, it could have consulted under Section7 with respect to each individual NOI.
The one choice that was not available to the Forest Servicewas never to consult. Yet that is the choice the Forest Servicemade. In making that choice, the Forest Service violated Section 7 of the ESA.
I respectfully but emphatically dissent from the conclusionof the majority to the contrary.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.