Jake’s Fireworks, Inc. v Acosta

Jake’s petitioned for review of three health and safety citations. The panel denied the petition. It affirmed as to hazardous storage of explosives as 29 CFR 1910.109(b)(1) is not unconstitutionally vague as it puts the pubic on notice that violations happen when storage creates an undue hazard to life and as applied here to the storage facility which had exposed gunpowder, damaged fireworks overgrown vegetation and debris and those conditions also supported the conclusion of violation here as the foreman saw the conditions, stated the facility was not like that when actively used by Jake’s, the conditions led to an increased risk of harm and the flash fire also supported the conclusion of an undue hazard. It affirmed as to a designated truck violation because 29 USC 1910.178(c(2)(viii) does not require testing for combustible dust, a policy statement about testing for combustible dust is not binding and evidence of fireworks and gunpowder on the floor  and use of an unauthorized forklift was sufficient to prove the violation. It finally affirmed the citation for failure to have a hazard communication program as fireworks pose a physical hazard and thus Jake’s was not exempt from the written program requirement.

United States v Frias

Frias appealed her felon in possession conviction. The panel affirmed. It held Frias’ speedy trial rights were not violated because the unreasonable delay here did not prejudice Frias as her witness was able to remember the events in question at trial and she failed to demonstrate how more time with counsel would have changed her trial defense. It also held there was no abuse of discretion in referring the jury to correct instructions about the elements of the offense in response to questions for the jury during deliberations.

Avila-Ramos v Kammerzell

Avilla-Ramos appealed the extradition order in this case. The panel affirmed holding the magistrate judge correctly labeled the crime charged and probable cause exited as conspiring to commit homicide is a theory of liability for homicide and there was evidence that Avila-Ramos agreed with her paramour to kill her husband and told the gunman where her husband was and considering hearsay form the paramour’s trial was allowed as the rules of evidence do not apply and there were also text messages, phone records and statements for the paramour and private and state investigators which support the probable cause finding.