The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an en banc decision Monday that significantly restricts how unpreserved legal challenges can be reviewed on appeal, overruling decades of precedent in a case involving enhanced criminal sentencing.
In *United States v. Gomez*, the full 11-judge panel affirmed a district court's application of career offender sentencing enhancements to Jesus Ramiro Gomez, who pleaded guilty to methamphetamine distribution. However, the broader legal significance lies in the court's decision to abandon the "pure question of law" exception that previously allowed more lenient review of certain unpreserved claims.
Gomez had challenged his enhanced sentence on appeal, arguing that his prior California conviction for assault with a deadly weapon under Penal Code Section 245(a)(1) should not qualify as a "crime of violence" under federal sentencing guidelines. The classification was crucial because it triggered the career offender enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Section 4B1.1(a), resulting in a harsher sentence.
The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, where Senior District Judge James V. Selna presided over Gomez's guilty plea and sentencing. Gomez did not challenge the crime of violence classification at the district court level, raising the issue for the first time in his opening brief on appeal.
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52, unpreserved claims of legal error are typically subject to plain error review, a restrictive standard that requires demonstrating obvious error affecting substantial rights and seriously undermining judicial integrity. However, the Ninth Circuit had previously recognized an exception allowing de novo review when appeals presented "pure questions of law" with no prejudice to the opposing party.
The government argued that Gomez's unpreserved challenge should be reviewed only under the plain error standard. Initially, a three-judge panel applied the pure question of law exception and conducted de novo review, concluding that a Section 245(a)(1) conviction did not constitute a crime of violence.
The en banc court, composed of Chief Judge Mary H. Murguia and Judges Ronald M. Gould, Milan D. Smith Jr., Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Ryan D. Nelson, Eric D. Miller, Daniel P. Collins, Lucy H. Koh, Jennifer Sung, Holly A. Thomas, and Ana de Alba, took a different approach. Judge Holly A. Thomas authored the majority opinion, with Judge Daniel P. Collins writing separately in concurrence.
The court explicitly overruled the longstanding precedent that recognized the pure question of law exception to Rule 52. The decision establishes that all unpreserved claims of legal error must be reviewed under the plain error standard, regardless of whether they present pure legal questions or cause prejudice to opposing parties.
This procedural shift represents a significant tightening of appellate review standards in the Ninth Circuit. The pure question of law exception had allowed criminal defendants and civil litigants to obtain more favorable review of certain legal arguments even when they failed to preserve those arguments at trial. By eliminating this exception, the court has aligned itself more closely with strict application of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52.
The timing of this en banc decision, filed January 13, 2026, following oral arguments held September 9, 2025, suggests the court viewed the issue as sufficiently important to warrant full panel consideration. En banc review is reserved for cases involving questions of exceptional importance or conflicts with Supreme Court precedent.
For practitioners in the Ninth Circuit, this decision emphasizes the critical importance of preserving legal challenges at the trial court level. The plain error standard is notoriously difficult to satisfy, requiring clear and obvious error that affects the outcome and undermines confidence in the judicial process.
The ruling affects not only criminal cases but potentially all civil and criminal appeals where parties fail to preserve legal arguments below. Previously, attorneys could rely on the pure question of law exception to obtain meaningful appellate review of certain statutory interpretation issues, constitutional questions, and other legal determinations.
Despite the procedural significance, the court ultimately affirmed Gomez's enhanced sentence, finding that his California assault conviction qualified as a crime of violence under federal guidelines. The case number 23-435 reflects the 2023 filing date, with the underlying district court case numbered 8:20-cr-00171-JVS-FWS-5.
The decision represents a notable shift toward more restrictive appellate review in the nation's largest federal circuit, which covers nine states and handles approximately 20% of the federal appellate caseload. Legal practitioners will need to adjust their strategies to ensure proper preservation of all potential appellate issues during trial proceedings.
The ruling may prompt similar reconsiderations in other circuits that have recognized comparable exceptions to plain error review, potentially leading to more uniform application of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52 across federal appellate courts.