No IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. IKE ROMANUS BRIGHT, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
|
|
- Angela Robbins
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 No IN THE Supreme Court of the United States IKE ROMANUS BRIGHT, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF THE NATIONAL LEGAL AID & DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION ( NLADA ) AND PUBLIC COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER EDWIN A. BURNETTE, ESQ. DEFENDER LEGAL SERVICES NATIONAL LEGAL AID & DEFENDER ASSOCIATION 1140 Connecticut Ave. NW Suite 900 Washington, DC JUDITH LONDON, ESQ. PUBLIC COUNSEL 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA CHRISTOPHER J. CLARK, ESQ. Counsel of Record JILL OTTENBERG, ESQ. ELIZABETH A. CATE, ESQ. DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY (212) cjclark@dl.com February 21, 2012 Counsel for Amicus Curiae A (800) (800)
2 i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES Page i iii STATEMENT OF INTEREST SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ARGUMENT I. TO BE CONSIDERED A FUGITIVE, AND THEREFORE DENIED THE RIGHT TO APPEAL, A PETITIONER MUST FLEE II. APPLICATION OF THE FUGITIVE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE IN THE ABSENCE OF PETITIONER S FLIGHT IS UNFAIR IN LIGHT OF CHALLENGES FACED BY MANY CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS III. THIS COURT HAS REJECTED THE PER SE APPLICATION OF THE FUGITIVE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE IN CRIMINAL CASES
3 ii Table of Contents Page IV. THE FIFTH CIRCUIT REVIEWS VARIOUS CONSIDERATIONS BEFORE APPLYING THE FUGITIVE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE IN CRIMINAL CASES V. EVEN IF THE FUGITIVE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE APPLIES TO IMMIGRATION PETITIONERS, THE COURT SHOULD REQUIRE A BALANCING OF EQUITABLE FACTORS AS IT DOES IN CRIMINAL CASES CONCLUSION
4 iii TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES Page Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820 (1996) , 5 Delgadillo v. Carmichael, 332 U.S. 388 (1947) Estelle v. Dorrough, 420 U.S. 534 (1975) Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893) Garcia-Flores v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 439 (6th Cir. 2007) Hemenway v. Hemenway, 339 A.2d 247 (R.I. 1975) Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365 (1970) Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234 (1993) , 4, 10 Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct (2010) , 15 Sapoundjiev v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 727 (7th Cir. 2004)
5 iv Cited Authorities Page United States v. Delagarza-Villarreal, 141 F.3d 133 (5th Cir. 1997) , 13 United States v. Hanzlicek, 187 F.3d 1219 (10th Cir. 1999) United States v. Morgan, 254 F.3d 424 (2d Cir. 2001) United States v. Smith, 419 F.3d 521 (6th Cir. 2005) Wu v. Holder, 646 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2011) OTHER CASES Moscona v. Shenhar, 649 S.E.2d 191 (Va. Ct. App. 2007), aff d sub nom., Sasson v. Shenhar, 667 S.E.2d 555 (Va. 2008).. 3 FEDERAL STATUTES 18 U.S.C Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA)
6 v Cited Authorities Page Sup. Ct. R Sup. Ct. R OTHER AUTHORITIES Black s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009) Daniel Kanstroom, Deportation, Social Control and Punishment: Some Thoughts About Why Hard Laws Make Bad Cases, 113 Harv. L. Rev (2000) , 14 Doris J. James & Lauren E. Glaze, Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report (2006) Elena M. de Jongh, Court Interpreting: Linguistic Presence v. Linguistic Absence, Florida Bar Journal, July/Aug Erica J. Hashimoto, Class Matters, 101 J. of Criminal L. & Criminology 31 (2011) Hon. Lynn W. Davis et al., The Changing Face of Justice: A Survey of Recent Cases Involving Courtroom Interpretation, Harv. Latino L. Rev., Spring
7 vi Cited Authorities Page Maité Jullian, Shortage of Court Interpreters Worsening in U.S., USA TODAY, Nov. 19, 2008, court-interpreters_N.htm Stephen H. Legomsky, The New Path of Immigration Law: Asymmetric Incorporation of Criminal Justice Norms, 64 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 469 (2007) Teresa A. Miller, Blurring the Boundaries between Immigration and Crime Control After September 11th, 25 B.C. Third World L.J. 81 (2005), available at dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/ bctwj/25_1/04_txt.htm U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Briefs, The Newly Arrived Foreign- Born Population of the United States: 2010 (2011), available at gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-16.pdf U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Reports, Language Use in the United States: 2007 (2010), available at census.gov/prod/2010pubs/acs-12.pdf U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statistics, 2009-Statistical Tables (2012)
8 1 The National Legal Aid & Defenders Association ( NLADA ) and Public Counsel respectfully submit this amici curiae brief in support of Petitioner. 1 STATEMENT OF INTEREST Amicus curiae NLADA is a nonprofit association devoted to the delivery of legal services, including public defense, to those who cannot afford counsel. Since 1911, NLADA has facilitated access to justice at the national, state and local level through the creation of a public defender system, development of national standards for legal representation, and major legislation. As an association dedicated to protecting the rights of indigent criminal defendants by improving public defense services, NLADA has a profound interest in ensuring that a per se application of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine is not endorsed by this Court. Amicus curiae Public Counsel is the largest pro bono law office in the nation. Public Counsel s work affects a wide spectrum of individuals who live at or below the poverty level. Public Counsel s Immigrant s Rights 1. Pursuant to Rules 37.2 and 37.6 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, counsel of record for all parties received notice at least 10 days prior to the due date of this brief of amici curiae s intention to file the brief. All parties have consented to the filing of the brief and the parties consent letters are being filed herewith. No counsel for a party authored the brief in whole or in part, and no counsel for a party made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of the brief. No persons or entities other than amici curiae, their members, or their counsel made a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of the brief.
9 2 Project provides legal services to vulnerable immigrant groups, including immigrant detainees who would have no access to attorneys without Public Counsel s assistance. The Fifth Circuit s broad interpretation of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine in immigration cases poses a threat to both criminal defendants and immigration petitioners. As practitioners representing these individuals, amici curiae seek to protect our clients rights to judicial review. If the Fifth Circuit s rule is allowed to stand, a criminal defendant who is also facing a deportation proceeding may be stripped of his right to appeal his criminal conviction if he misses one court date, regardless of whether the government was prejudiced by his absence and without consideration of the circumstances. Amici curiae have an interest in the Court s resolution of the questions presented by the Petition and encourage the Court to extend the equitybased principles established in its criminal fugitive disentitlement jurisprudence to immigration cases. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The scope of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine in criminal cases has been well-established by this Court. See Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234, 242 (1993); Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820 (1996). Recently, as noted in Petitioner s brief, lower courts have begun to apply this doctrine to strip petitioners of their appellate rights in other areas of law, including immigration and child custody. See, e.g., Garcia-Flores v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 439, 442 (6th Cir. 2007) (applying the fugitive disentitlement doctrine to an unlawfully-
10 3 present foreigner who failed to report for deportation); Sapoundjiev v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 727, 730 (7th Cir. 2004) (applying the fugitive disentitlement doctrine to alien removal proceedings); Wu v. Holder, 646 F.3d 133, (2d Cir. 2011) (same); Moscona v. Shenhar, 649 S.E.2d 191, 199 (Va. Ct. App. 2007), aff d sub nom. Sasson v. Shenhar, 667 S.E.2d 555 (Va. 2008) (applying the fugitive disentitlement doctrine to a parent in a custody proceeding where he refused to reveal child s whereabouts and failed to appear for a hearing on his non-compliance with the court s order); Hemenway v. Hemenway, 339 A.2d 247, 250 (R.I. 1975) (deferring review of petitioner s request for review where petitioner refused to return with his children to the jurisdiction for a child custody proceeding). As attorneys for indigent defendants in the criminal and immigration systems, we believe that the fugitive disentitlement doctrine should be applied only when the petitioner has fled or escaped and his whereabouts are unknown. Based on our experience with the population that the Fifth Circuit s ruling will affect, we submit that courts applying this doctrine should also weigh equitable factors in deciding whether to deny a petitioner s appeal, including prejudice to the government, the reasons for the petitioner s absence, and effects of the petitioner s absence on the judicial process. The Court should resolve the questions presented by the Petitioner to ensure uniformity and fairness in the application of this doctrine, which affects the rights of our clients.
11 4 ARGUMENT As Petitioner notes, the questions presented by this case affect the rights of thousands of litigants, including a significant number of criminal defendants. See Petr s Brief at 23. We join Petitioner s arguments, and further contend that, if upheld, the Fifth Circuit s holding will unduly prejudice criminal defendants rights to judicial review. We further submit that the Fifth Circuit s application of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine flies in the face of this Court s established precedent applying the doctrine in the criminal context. I. TO BE CONSIDERED A FUGITIVE, AND THEREFORE DENIED THE RIGHT TO APPEAL, A PETITIONER MUST FLEE In support of the Petitioners arguments, we submit that it violates fundamental fairness to treat a petitioner as a fugitive, and therefore bar appellate review of his conviction under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, when the government is aware of his whereabouts. We support Petitioner s argument that the defi nition and statutory usage of the word fugitive indicate that flight or escape is required. See Petr s Br. at 25; Black s Law Dictionary 741 (9th ed. 2009); 18 U.S.C ( Felony Fugitive Act ) (defining fugitive as one who moves or travels to escape judicial authority). As Petitioner notes, this Court has required flight or evasion in barring judicial access under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine in the criminal context. See Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234, 242 (1993) ( dismissal by an appellate court after a defendant has fled its jurisdiction serves an important deterrent function and advances an interest in efficient, dignified appellate practice ) (citation omitted);
12 5 Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820, 825 (1996) (reversing summary judgment against defendant under fugitive disentitlement doctrine, but noting that the doctrine could be properly applied where necessary to prevent actual prejudice to the Government from a fugitive s extended absence ). The Fifth Circuit s rule expands the definition of fugitive far beyond the boundaries established by this Court in its criminal jurisprudence. Under the Fifth Circuit s holding, a criminal appellant and an immigration appellant who have not fled, but who have remained at a known location for the pendency of their cases would face disparate outcomes in their appeals, with no legally compelling justification for the difference in treatment. II. APPLICATION OF THE FUGITIVE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE IN THE ABSENCE OF PETITIONER S FLIGHT IS UNFAIR IN LIGHT OF CHALLENGES FACED BY MANY CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS As Petitioner notes, the questions presented by this case affect our clients, indigent defendants, with particular force. Therefore, the Court should resolve these questions in line with its prior fugitive disentitlement jurisprudence that is, narrowly applying the doctrine in situations where the rationales of the doctrine are fulfilled. Our experiences as attorneys for indigent litigants in the criminal and immigration systems inform our belief that, even if a litigant has failed to appear in court or respond to a judicial order, he should not face an automatic bar to his right to appeal. The U.S. court system is rife with opportunities for confusion and misunderstanding on the part of an indigent defendant. From their first appearance
13 6 in court, defendants face a system that, while routine for lawyers and judges, presents serial opportunities for misunderstanding on the part of a defendant. Often, a defendant may only briefly consult with even the most wellmeaning and dedicated assigned counsel before appearing before a judge. Further, assigned counsel may not be able to communicate the court s orders effectively to a non- English speaking or mentally impaired client. In addition, it is typical for assigned counsel to have large caseloads which can make it difficult to meet with a client immediately after a court proceeding to explain and clarify a client s obligations regarding their next appearance. Defendants often face packed and chaotic courtrooms, frequent adjournments, and brief appearances before a judge, all of which limits their ability to absorb complicated legal terminology that is inherently difficult for a layperson to comprehend. Under these circumstances, it is inevitable that defendants, unwittingly and with no intent to flee, fail to appear for court proceedings. It would be manifestly unfair, however, to apply the harsh consequences of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine in such cases. In addition to complicated nature of the court system, many individuals in the criminal justice system face challenges that affect their ability to understand court proceedings and their attendant obligations. These barriers include mental illness, minimal education, and lack of English proficiency. Although demographic data regarding criminal defendants is not formally collected, 2 2. Erica J. Hashimoto, Class Matters, 101 J. of Criminal L. & Criminology 31, 32 (2011) (noting that demographic information on defendants in the [criminal justice] system (with the possible exception of information regarding race and gender) is almost nonexistent ).
14 7 the following statistics are helpful to understand this population: Limited English proficiency: Criminal defendants may not speak or understand English fluently. According to the most recent U.S. Census data, approximately 13.5 million U.S. residents report that they do not speak fluent English. 3 Texas, Petitioner s home state, is among the states with the highest immigrant population. 4 If he does not speak English fluently, a defendant may not be able to communicate effectively with counsel or understand court proceedings. In recent years, state and federal courts have reported an increasing shortage of court interpreter services for non- English speaking litigants. 5 Cases challenging inadequate court interpretation are being brought in appellate courts with increasing frequency, 3. U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Reports, Language Use in the United States: 2007 at 2 (April 2010), available at pdf. 4. U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Briefs, The Newly Arrived Foreign-Born Population of the United States: 2010 at 1, 3 (2011), available at prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-16.pdf. 5. Maité Jullian, Shortage of Court Interpreters Worsening in U.S., USA TODAY, Nov. 19, 2008, available at usatoday.com/news/nation/ court-interpreters_n. htm; see also Elena M. de Jongh, Court Interpreting: Linguistic Presence v. Linguistic Absence, 82 The Florida Bar Journal 7 (2008).
15 8 indicating that defendants are often deprived of meaningful access to the justice system. 6 Limited education: The majority of individuals in the criminal justice system are not well-educated. In 2009, over half of all convicted federal offenders 7 had not completed high school. 8 While education level is not necessarily determinative of defendant s ability to understand a court proceeding, it stands to reason that an individual with limited education may be less able to understand the intricacies of formal court proceedings, and the often-complicated procedural requirements of an appeal. Poor mental health: Many individuals in the criminal justice system suffer from mental illnesses, further complicating their ability to understand their court-ordered obligations. According to the most recent comprehensive study of mental health in the U.S. prison population, 9 approximately 45% 6. Hon. Lynn W. Davis, et al., The Changing Face of Justice: A Survey of Recent Cases Involving Courtroom Interpretation 7 Harv. Latino L. Rev. 1, 5-6 (2004). 7. The number of Federal criminal defendants who have not completed high school may be even higher, as this is a broader population than convicted Federal offenders. 8. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 51.3% of Federal inmates had not completed high school. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statistics, Statistical Tables 21 (2012). 9. See note 7, supra, regarding the scope of these statistics.
16 9 of Federal inmates were reported to have a mental illness. 10 These obstacles make it easy for a defendant to misunderstand his court-imposed obligations. Our experience serving as counsel for this population has shown us that, especially in the absence of flight, a failure to appear or to comply with a court order is just as likely to result from confusion as from willful obstruction. Applying a per se bar to appellate review without considering all relevant facts and circumstances would be unduly prejudicial. III. THIS COURT HAS REJECTED THE PER SE APPLICATION OF THE FUGITIVE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE IN CRIMINAL CASES This Court has consistently held that a fugitive criminal defendant should only be deprived of his right to appeal the merits of his conviction after a balancing of equitable factors. It is unclear from this Court s precedent whether the fugitive disentitlement doctrine is applicable to immigration cases. However, while the 10. Doris J. James & Lauren E. Glaze, Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report 1, (2006). For the purpose of the report, a mental health issue was defined by a recent diagnosis or treatment of a mental illness or recent symptoms of a mental illness, as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV). Id. Statistical data on mental health of defendants in criminal cases (as opposed to inmates) is not publicly available.
17 10 Courts of Appeals are split regarding the appropriate application of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine for immigration cases, this Court has removed any ambiguity from the issue in the criminal context. In Ortega- Rodriguez v. United States, this Court rejected the per se application of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine without a review of equitable factors. 507 U.S. 234 (1993) (holding that the dismissal of fugitive appeals is always discretionary and subject to an equitable analysis by the court). The well-developed, equity-based jurisprudence of this Court 11 and the circuits 12 suggests a judicial consensus 11. In its evolving jurisprudence regarding this issue, this Court has expanded upon the rationales for the implementation of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 366 (1970) (holding that a defendant s escape should disentitle him from calling upon the resources of an appellate court to hear his claims); Estelle v. Dorrough, 420 U.S. 534, 537 (1975) (emphasizing that the fugitive disentitlement doctrine will encourage voluntary surrender and deter other defendants from fleeing, and promote the efficient operation of appellate courts). 12. Pursuant to Ortega-Rodriguez, the circuits weigh various considerations in their equitable analysis of fugitive disentitlement cases. These considerations include, but are not limited to, prejudice to the government caused by the defendant s escape; current status of the fugitive; and effect on the efficiency of the appellate process. United States v. Hanzlicek, 187 F.3d 1219 (10th Cir. 1999) (holding that policy considerations strongly weigh in favor of application of fugitive disentitlement doctrine where the criminal defendant remains a fugitive during the pendency of the direct appeal of her conviction); United States v. Morgan, 254 F.3d 424, 427 (2d Cir. 2001) (applying fugitive disentitlement doctrine where defendant had interfered with the efficient operations of the courts because he could not be returned to custody for six years); United States v. Smith, 419 F.3d 521, 527 (6th Cir. 2005) (applying fugitive disentitlement doctrine where
18 11 that it is in the interest of justice to apply the fugitive disentitlement doctrine with thought, discretion, and restraint in criminal cases. This jurisprudence should be extended to prohibit a per se application of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine to immigration petitioners as well. To permit the Fifth Circuit to ignore, in immigration cases, factors which this Court has found to be imperative for review in the criminal context would subject petitioners in that circuit to excessively punitive treatment. This Court s understanding of the rights of immigrant petitioners does not support such an application of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. 13 Where a petitioner is not at large, and where his absence results in no prejudice to the Government, it is arbitrary and unfair to apply the fugitive disentitlement doctrine in a way that differs so significantly from its established use in criminal cases. The equity-based jurisprudence of this Court and the circuits in criminal cases highlights the Fifth Circuit s draconian standard for applying the fugitive disentitlement doctrine in immigration cases. defendant s 12-year absence made it impossible for government to retry their case, since defendant s co-defendants had died, an FBI agent who managed the case had retired, physical evidence had been destroyed, and it was probable that not all of the witnesses could be located). 13. See discussion infra of Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct (2010).
19 12 IV. THE FIFTH CIRCUIT REVIEWS VARIOUS CONSIDERATIONS BEFORE APPLYING THE FUGITIVE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE IN CRIMINAL CASES The Fifth Circuit s own precedent applying the fugitive disentitlement doctrine in criminal cases stands starkly in opposition to its per se application of the doctrine in this immigration matter. In United States v. Delagarza- Villarreal, the Fifth Circuit refused to deny the right to appeal under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine to a defendant who was recaptured and returned to custody after he failed to appear for sentencing. 141 F.3d 133 (5th Cir. 1997). The court employed a thorough, reasoned, and restrained analysis of various considerations in coming to this determination. The court found that the government was not prejudiced by the defendant s absence, since it failed to demonstrate that the contraband drugs would not have been destroyed absent the defendant s fugitive status. Id. at 138. Further, the court held that the delay caused by defendant s fugitive status did not significantly interfere with the judicial process, and therefore denied the government s motion to dismiss the appeal. Id. It is this same court that, fourteen years later, denied Mr. Bright whose address had always been known by the government, and who was not only reachable at the time of the appeal, but had been reachable for the prior ten years his right to appeal the Board of Immigration Appeal s decision. How the same court, implementing the same doctrine, could come to such disparate conclusions is baffling. What s more, barring the defendant s access to the courts in Delagarza-Villarreal after a balancing of equitable factors would arguably have been more appropriate. Mr. Delagarza absconded at a court recess
20 13 during his trial. Found guilty in absentia, he was recaptured and sentenced to two 120-month terms of imprisonment. By contrast, Mr. Bright never absconded his address has always been known to the government and as a result, the government had to expend no resources on his recapture. Yet, in Delagarza-Villarreal, the same court that refused to consider any factors other than Mr. Bright s alleged fugitive status in denying his right to appeal, carefully considered a number of factors, including prejudice to the government, in reasoning that defendant Delagarza was entitled to that same right. V. EVEN IF THE FUGITIVE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE APPLIES TO IMMIGRATION PETITIONERS, THE COURT SHOULD REQUIRE A BALANCING OF EQUITABLE FACTORS AS IT DOES IN CRIMINAL CASES The increased criminalization of the immigration system in the United States highlights the unfairness of the Fifth Circuit s disparate treatment of criminal defendants and immigration petitioners. Over the past two decades, immigrants have been increasingly treated similarly to criminals in the United States. The passage of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) has, in many cases, brought about a rather complete convergence between the criminal justice and deportation systems. 14 Scholars have noted that immigration law and 14. Daniel Kanstroom, Deportation, Social Control and Punishment: Some Thoughts About Why Hard Laws Make Bad Cases, 113 Harv. L. Rev. 1889, 1891 (2000). [hereinafter Kanstroom, Deportation, Social Control, and Punishment].
21 14 policy has, over time, become much less distinguishable from criminal law and punishment. 15 Such immigration policies include the retroactivity... use of mandatory detention, the automatic and often disproportionate nature of the deportation sanction, and the lack of statutes of limitation[s]. 16 Professor Daniel Kanstroom has argued that the deportation of lawful permanent residents for post-entry criminal conduct serves an incapacitating function, is a form of punishment, and may serve as a deterring factor to others. 17 Professor Kanstroom suggests that since punishment, incapacitation, and deterrence are all traditionally accepted as part of our criminal law, as opposed to our civil law, one might well assume that persons subject to these types of proceedings would at least have the most basic constitutional rights accorded to criminal defendants. 18 Professor Stephen Legomsky notes that while immigration law has taken many of its enforcement components from the criminal justice system, the law has not adopted the corresponding attributes regarding adjudication. 19 Legomsky cites the rise of preventive 15. Teresa A. Miller, Blurring the Boundaries between Immigration and Crime Control After September 11th, 25 B.C. Third World L.J. 81, (2005), available at dam/fi les/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bctwj/25_1/04_txt. htm. 16. Kanstroom, Deportation, Social Control, and Punishment at Id. at Id. at Stephen H. Legomsky, The New Path of Immigration Law: Asymmetric Incorporation of Criminal Justice Norms, 64 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 469, 475 (2007).
22 15 detention and plea bargaining in immigration cases as examples of the specific aspects of the United States criminal enforcement machinery that has permeated immigration cases in recent years. 20 Furthermore, Professor Legomsky observes that government actors including state and local criminal enforcement officials and federal sentencing judges have become increasingly involved in the enforcement of immigration policy in the United States. 21 Expanding the responsibilities of those tasked with the enforcement of criminal laws to include similar enforcement mechanisms in the immigration context further blurs the line between these two areas of the law. This Court recognizes that although procedurally distinct immigration law has assumed many qualities of the criminal justice system. Stopping short of categorizing deportation as a criminal sanction, in Padilla v. Kentucky, this Court recognized the severity of the deportation penalty, and observed that deportation is... intimately related to the criminal process. 130 S. Ct. 1473, 1481 (2010) (citing Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 740 (1893)). In Padilla, this Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel may be applied to deportation proceedings. Id. The need for effective assistance of counsel in immigration proceedings is underscored by [t] he severity of deportation the equivalent of banishment or exile.... Id. at 1486 (citing Delgadillo v. Carmichael, 332 U.S. 388, (1947)). Unlike the petitioner in Padilla, Mr. Bright is not asking this Court to extend a constitutional right to 20. Id. at Id. at 496.
23 16 immigration petitioners. Rather, Mr. Bright merely asks that if the Court finds that the fugitive disentitlement doctrine should apply to immigration cases, he not be subjected to the severe consequences of applying the doctrine without, at the very least, a balancing of equitable factors. This Court has long mandated such a balancing in the criminal context. 22 While distinctions between criminal and immigration proceedings endure, there is no justification for a lone circuit court to be permitted to enforce a per se application of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine when this Court has prohibited such an application in criminal cases, and when every other circuit rejects such an application for immigration cases. Where under our current immigration laws, deportation has become intimately related to the criminal process, it does not follow that those subject to deportation should be barred from judicial access when such a proposition has been universally rejected as applied to criminal defendants. If the fugitive disentitlement doctrine is applied to immigration cases, the standard set by this Court for applying the doctrine in the criminal context should be extended to this area of the law. 22. See supra note 11.
24 17 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the petition for writ of certiorari should be granted. Respectfully submitted, EDWIN A. BURNETTE, ESQ. DEFENDER LEGAL SERVICES NATIONAL LEGAL AID & DEFENDER ASSOCIATION 1140 Connecticut Ave. NW Suite 900 Washington, DC JUDITH LONDON, ESQ. PUBLIC COUNSEL 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA CHRISTOPHER J. CLARK, ESQ. Counsel of Record JONATHAN RICHMAN, ESQ. JILL OTTENBERG, ESQ. ELIZABETH A. CATE, ESQ. DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY (212) February 21, 2012 Counsel for Amicus Curiae
Supreme Court of the United States
No. 11-890 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States IKE ROMANUS BRIGHT, v. Petitioner, ERIC J. HOLDER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR THE UNITED STATES COURT
More informationThe Fugitive Dismissal Rule Applied to Pre-Appeal Fugitivity
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 84 Issue 4 Winter Article 15 Winter 1994 The Fugitive Dismissal Rule Applied to Pre-Appeal Fugitivity Jason W. Joseph Follow this and additional works at:
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 11-890 In the Supreme Court of the United States IKE ROMANUS BRIGHT, v. Petitioner, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2007 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-8-2007 USA v. Ladner Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-1228 Follow this and additional
More informationThe Fugitive Dismissal Rule: Ortega-Rodriguez Takes the Bite Out of Flight
Pepperdine Law Review Volume 22 Issue 3 Article 5 4-15-1995 The Fugitive Dismissal Rule: Ortega-Rodriguez Takes the Bite Out of Flight Anthony Michael Altman Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 14-171 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- KENNETH TROTTER,
More information1/7/ :53 PM GEARTY_COMMENT_WDF (PAGE PROOF) (DO NOT DELETE)
Immigration Law Second Drug Offense Not Aggravated Felony Merely Because of Possible Felony Recidivist Prosecution Alsol v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 2008) Under the Immigration and Nationality Act
More informationNo IN THE Supreme Court of the United States REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
No. 16-1337 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States DONTE LAMAR JONES, v. Petitioner, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari To the Virginia Supreme Court REPLY IN
More informationLOPEZ v. GONZALES & TOLEDO- FLORES v. UNITED STATES: STATE FELONY DRUG CONVICTIONS NOT NECESSARILY AGGRAVATED FELONIES REQUIRING DEPORTATION
LOPEZ v. GONZALES & TOLEDO- FLORES v. UNITED STATES: STATE FELONY DRUG CONVICTIONS NOT NECESSARILY AGGRAVATED FELONIES REQUIRING DEPORTATION RYAN WAGNER* I. INTRODUCTION The United States Courts of Appeals
More information6/8/2007 9:42:17 AM SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. XL:4
Immigration Law Nunc Pro Tunc Relief Unavailable Where Erroneous Legal Interpretation Rendered Alien Ineligible for Deportation Waiver Pereira v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2005) An alien convicted
More informationORDER REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Division I Opinion by JUDGE ROMÁN Taubman and Fox, JJ., concur
12CA0378 Peo v. Rivas-Landa 07-11-2013 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 12CA0378 Adams County District Court No. 10CR558 Honorable Chris Melonakis, Judge The People of the State of Colorado,
More informationChristopher Jones v. PA Board Probation and Parole
2012 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-25-2012 Christopher Jones v. PA Board Probation and Parole Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket
More informationDecided: September 22, S14A0690. ENCARNACION v. THE STATE. This case concerns the adequacy of an attorney s immigration advice to
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: September 22, 2014 S14A0690. ENCARNACION v. THE STATE. THOMPSON, Chief Justice. This case concerns the adequacy of an attorney s immigration advice to a legal permanent
More informationWright, Arthur, *Zarnoch, Robert A., (Retired, Specially Assigned),
REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1078 September Term, 2014 JUAN CARLOS SANMARTIN PRADO v. STATE OF MARYLAND Wright, Arthur, *Zarnoch, Robert A., (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT JOHN R. TURNER. Petitioner-Appellant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
No. 15-6060 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT JOHN R. TURNER Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent-Appellee BRIEF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL
More informationPostconviction Relief Actions Hon. Robert J. Blink 5 th Judicial District of Iowa
Postconviction Relief Actions Hon. Robert J. Blink 5 th Judicial District of Iowa Basics Protecting yourself preventing PCRs o Two step approach Protect your client Facts & law Consult experienced lawyers
More informationLAWRENCE v. FLORIDA: APPLICATIONS FOR POST- CONVICTION RELIEF ARE PENDING UNDER THE AEDPA ONLY UNTIL FINAL JUDGMENT IN STATE COURT
LAWRENCE v. FLORIDA: APPLICATIONS FOR POST- CONVICTION RELIEF ARE PENDING UNDER THE AEDPA ONLY UNTIL FINAL JUDGMENT IN STATE COURT ELIZABETH RICHARDSON-ROYER* I. INTRODUCTION On February 20, 2007, the
More informationNo NORTH STAR ALASKA HOUSING CORP., Petitioner,
No. 10-122 NORTH STAR ALASKA HOUSING CORP., Petitioner, V. UNITED STATES, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit REPLY BRIEF FOR
More informationNo. In The Supreme Court of the United States HAROON RASHID, ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. In The Supreme Court of the United States HAROON RASHID, v. Petitioner, ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY OF DEPORTATION ORDER PENDING WRIT OF CERTIORARI COMES
More informationmg Doc 28 Filed 06/20/14 Entered 06/20/14 17:18:03 Main Document Pg 1 of 10
Pg 1 of 10 Hearing Date and Time: July 23, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. (Prevailing Eastern Time) Response Date and Time: July 4, 2014 at 4:00 p.m. (Prevailing Eastern Time) UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN
More informationNo SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON ESMERALDA RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, LUIS DANIEL ZAVALA, Respondent.
No. 93645-5 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON ESMERALDA RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. LUIS DANIEL ZAVALA, Respondent. BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON William H. Block,
More informationWhen Is A Felony Not A Felony?: A New Approach to Challenging Recidivist-Based Charges and Sentencing Enhancements
When Is A Felony Not A Felony?: A New Approach to Challenging Recidivist-Based Charges and Sentencing Enhancements Alan DuBois Senior Appellate Attorney Federal Public Defender-Eastern District of North
More informationNo CHRISTOPHER DONELAN, SHERIFF OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL., Respondents. REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
No. 17-923 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States MARK ANTHONY REID, V. Petitioner, CHRISTOPHER DONELAN, SHERIFF OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL., Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 17-1559 In the Supreme Court of the United States LEONARDO VILLEGAS-SARABIA, PETITIONER v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, ATTORNEY GENERAL ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 16-1144 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States CARLO J. MARINELLO, II Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
More information*************************************** NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
State v. Givens, 353 N.J. Super. 280 (App. Div. 2002). The following summary is not part of the opinion of the court. Please note that, in the interest of brevity, portions of the opinion may not have
More informationState of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department
State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: March 27, 2014 515985 In the Matter of TIMOTHY B. HALL, Appellant, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THOMAS LAVALLEY,
More informationThe Commonwealth of Massachusetts Committee for Public Counsel Services Immigration Impact Unit 21 McGrath Highway, Somerville, MA 02143
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Committee for Public Counsel Services Immigration Impact Unit 21 McGrath Highway, Somerville, MA 02143 ANTHONY J. BENEDETTI CHIEF COUNSEL TEL: 617-623-0591 FAX: 617-623-0936
More informationM E M O R A N D U M. Practitioners representing detained immigrant and refugee youth
CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Foundation 256 S. OCCIDENTAL BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CA 90057 Telephone: (213) 388-8693 Facsimile: (213) 386-9484, ext. 309 http://www.centerforhumanrights.org
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NO JOSE A. CALIX-CHAVARRIA, Petitioner, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NO. 05-3447 JOSE A. CALIX-CHAVARRIA, Petitioner, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES On a Petition For Review of an Order of the
More informationDunn v. Madison United States Supreme Court. Emma Cummings *
Emma Cummings * Thirty-two years ago, Vernon Madison was charged with the murder of a Mobile, Alabama police officer, Julius Schulte. 1 He was convicted of capital murder by an Alabama jury and sentenced
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2015COA34 Court of Appeals No. 14CA0049 Weld County District Court No. 09CR358 Honorable Thomas J. Quammen, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Osvaldo
More informationCase: 1:03-cr Document #: 205 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:535
Case: 1:03-cr-00636 Document #: 205 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:535 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) No. 03 CR 636-6 Plaintiff/Respondent,
More informationORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining
DISTRICT COURT, EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO 270 S. Tejon Colorado Springs, Colorado 80901 DATE FILED: March 19, 2018 11:58 PM CASE NUMBER: 2018CV30549 Plaintiffs: Saul Cisneros, Rut Noemi Chavez Rodriguez,
More information~bupreme ~ourt of t~e ~nitel~ ~tate~
Supreme Court, U.S. FILED NOV 2 5 20O9 No. 09-60 OFFICE OF THE CLE~K IN THE ~bupreme ~ourt of t~e ~nitel~ ~tate~ JOSE ANGEL CARACHURI-ROSENDO, Petitioner, V. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION CHARLES ANTHONY DAVIS, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) CV 119-015 ) (Formerly CR 110-041) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ALESTEVE CLEATON, Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondent 2015-3126 Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DC-0752-14-0760-I-1.
More informationPOST-PADILLA ISSUES. Two-Part Test: Strickland
POST-PADILLA ISSUES Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) It is our responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that no criminal defendant whether a citizen or not is left to the mercies of incompetent
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. Case No Civ (Altonaga/Simonton)
Case 1:14-cv-20308-CMA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2014 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 14-20308 Civ (Altonaga/Simonton) John Doe I, and John
More information7 Steps to Putting Together Your PCR Claim
Washington Defender Association s Immigration Project www.defensenet.org/immigration-project Ann Benson, Directing Attorney abenson@defensenet.org (360) 385-2538 Enoka Herat, Staff Attorney enoka@defensenet.org
More information********** conjunction with the AILA audio seminar, Post-conviction Relief in a Post-Chaidez World, held on March 4, 2014.
Post-Chaidez Claims of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: A Guide for Using Vacaturs and Re-Sentencing to Mitigate the Immigration Consequences of Convictions that Became Final Before March 31, 2010 1
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case: 18-15068, 04/10/2018, ID: 10831190, DktEntry: 137-2, Page 1 of 15 Nos. 18-15068, 18-15069, 18-15070, 18-15071, 18-15072, 18-15128, 18-15133, 18-15134 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 07-9712 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States JAMES BENJAMIN PUCKETT, v. Petitioner, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Fletcher v. Miller et al Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND KEVIN DWAYNE FLETCHER, Inmate Identification No. 341-134, Petitioner, v. RICHARD E. MILLER, Acting Warden of North Branch
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 09a0331p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT AMWAR I. SAQR, v. Petitioner, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney
More informationNo. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. October Term 2013
No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term 2013 DANIEL RAUL ESPINOZA, PETITIONER V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
More informationWhile the common law has banned executing the insane for centuries, 1 the U.S. Supreme Court did not hold that the Eighth Amendment
FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS DEATH PENALTY ELEVENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMS LOWER COURT FINDING THAT MENTALLY ILL PRISONER IS COMPETENT TO BE EXECUTED. Ferguson v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, 716 F.3d
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 11-9307 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ARMARCION D. HENDERSON,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION
Hill v. Dixon Correctional Institute Doc. 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION DWAYNE J. HILL, aka DEWAYNE HILL CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-1819 LA. DOC #294586 VS. SECTION
More informationThe Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe
Recommendation Rec(2006)13 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the use of remand in custody, the conditions in which it takes place and the provision of safeguards against abuse (Adopted
More informationORTEGA-RODRIGUEZ v. UNITED STATES. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit
234 OCTOBER TERM, 1992 Syllabus ORTEGA-RODRIGUEZ v. UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit No. 91 7749. Argued December 7, 1992 Decided March 8, 1993 In
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 07-1014 JIMMY EVANS, Petitioner, Appellant, v. MICHAEL A. THOMPSON, Superintendent of MCI Shirley, Respondent, Appellee, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
More informationA Critique Of The Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine And Why It Should Not Apply In Certain Immigration Proceedings
A Critique Of The Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine And Why It Should Not Apply In Certain Immigration Proceedings By Peter Acker Peter H. Acker I. Introduction The fugitive disentitlement doctrine is becoming
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-240 In the Supreme Court of the United States KENTEL MYRONE WEAVER, PETITIONER v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS BRIEF FOR MASSACHUSETTS
More informationDecember 19, This advisory is divided into the following sections:
PRACTICE ADVISORY: THE IMPACT OF THE BIA DECISIONS IN MATTER OF CARACHURI AND MATTER OF THOMAS ON REMOVAL DEFENSE OF IMMIGRANTS WITH MORE THAN ONE DRUG POSSESSION CONVICTION * December 19, 2007 On December
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ARMANDO GARCIA v. Petitioner, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court of Appeals (7th Cir.)
More informationVolume 66, Fall-Winter 1993, Number 4 Article 16
St. John's Law Review Volume 66, Fall-Winter 1993, Number 4 Article 16 Penal Law 70.04(1)(v): New York Court of Appeals Holds Incarceration Resulting from Invalid Conviction Does Not Toll Limitation Period
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
133 Nev., Advance Opinion I I IN THE THE STATE GUILLERMO RENTERIA-NOVOA, Appellant, vs. THE STATE, Respondent. No. 68239 FILED MAR 3 0 2017 ELIZABETH A BROWN CLERK By c Vi DEPUT1s;CtrA il Appeal from a
More informationFEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS UNDER 28 U.S.C. 2254
FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS UNDER 28 U.S.C. 2254 Meredith J. Ross 2011 Clinical Professor of Law Director, Frank J. Remington Center University of Wisconsin Law School 1) Introduction Many inmates
More informationThe Intersection of Immigration Law with CA State Law
The Intersection of Immigration Law with CA State Law January 16, 2015 Raha Jorjani, Office of the Alameda County Public Defender Agenda Overview of Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions. Post-Conviction
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
In re: Martin Tarin Franco Doc. 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION IN RE A-09-MC-508-SS MARTIN TARIN FRANCO ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
More informationCase: Document: Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/28/ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188299 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/28/2010 06-20885 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEFFREY K. SKILLING, Defendant-Appellant.
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. October Term JONATHAN BOYER, Petitioner, -vs- STATE OF LOUISIANA, Respondent
-.--- Defense Counsel No. 11-9953 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term 2012 JONATHAN BOYER, Petitioner, -vs- STATE OF LOUISIANA, Respondent ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE LOUISIANA
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2012 HOWARD H. BABB, JR., PUBLIC DEFENDER, Petitioner, v. Case No. 5D12-2285 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / Opinion filed
More informationUSA v. Shakira Williams
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-20-2010 USA v. Shakira Williams Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 09-3306 Follow this and
More informationCommittee for Public Counsel Services Public Defender Division Immigration Impact Unit 21 McGrath Highway, Somerville, MA 02143
Committee for Public Counsel Services Public Defender Division Immigration Impact Unit 21 McGrath Highway, Somerville, MA 02143 WENDY S. WAYNE TEL: (617) 623-0591 DIRECTOR FAX: (617) 623-0936 JEANETTE
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2015COA161 Court of Appeals No. 14CA1493 City and County of Denver District Court No. 11CR164 Honorable Ann B. Frick, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE SUPREME COURT. People of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, Case No
STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE SUPREME COURT In re Attorney Fees of John W. Ujlaky People of the State of Michigan, Supreme Court Plaintiff-Appellee, Case No. 150887 v. Court of Appeals Case No. 316494 Shawn
More informationCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL
COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL LAW of the JUDICIAL CONFERENCEOF THE UNITED STATES Post Office Box 1060 Laredo Texas 78042 Honorable Richard Arcara Honorable Robert Cowen 210 726-2237 Honorable Richard Battey Honorable
More informationRepresenting Foreign Nationals in Criminal Proceedings
Diversity in the Legal Profession Baton Rouge, Louisiana March 4, 2016 Representing Foreign Nationals in Criminal Proceedings Gordon Quan, Managing Partner 5444 Westheimer Rd., Suite 1750, Houston, TX
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 562 U. S. (2011) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationImpact of Immigration on Families: Intersection of Immigration and Criminal Law. Judicial Training Network Albuquerque, New Mexico April 20, 2018
Impact of Immigration on Families: Intersection of Immigration and Criminal Law Judicial Training Network Albuquerque, New Mexico April 20, 2018 Judicial Training Network 1 Introductions David B. Thronson
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 30, 2007
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 30, 2007 RONALD A. BARKER a/k/a GEORGE N. BAILEY v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Sullivan
More informationPetitioner, Respondent.
No. 16-5294 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JAMES EDMOND MCWILLIAMS, JR., Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON S. DUNN, COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., Respondent. On Petition for
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-27-2009 USA v. Marshall Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-4778 Follow this and additional
More informationPlead Guilty, You Could Face Deportation: Seventh Circuit Rules Misadvice and Nonadvice to Non-Citizens Has Same Effect Under the Sixth Amendment
Seventh Circuit Review Volume 10 Issue 1 Article 5 9-1-2014 Plead Guilty, You Could Face Deportation: Seventh Circuit Rules Misadvice and Nonadvice to Non-Citizens Has Same Effect Under the Sixth Amendment
More informationJurisdiction Profile: Alabama
1. THE SENTENCING COMMISSION Q. What year was the commission established? Has the commission essentially retained its original form or has it changed substantially or been abolished? The Alabama Legislature
More informationIn the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit
15-2074 Marin-Marin v. Sessions In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term, 2016 (Submitted: November 4, 2016 Decided: March 27, 2017) Docket No. 15-2074 ANTONIO PAUL MARIN-MARIN,
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2007 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-9-2007 USA v. Roberts Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-1371 Follow this and additional
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
-PJK Cuello v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Field Office Director of Doc. 10 Roberto Mendoza Cuello, Jr. Petitioner, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN
More informationOPINION BELOW. The opinion of the Tenth Circuit of Appeals is reported as Rashid v. Gonzales, 2006 WL (10 th Cir. 2006).
1 OPINION BELOW The opinion of the Tenth Circuit of Appeals is reported as Rashid v. Gonzales, 2006 WL 2171522 (10 th Cir. 2006). STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION A panel of the Tenth Circuit entered its decision
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED], Petitioner, v. KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland
More informationLEO 1880: QUESTIONS PRESENTED:
LEO 1880: OBLIGATIONS OF A COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY TO ADVISE HIS INDIGENT CLIENT OF THE RIGHT OF APPEAL FOLLOWING CONVICTION UPON A GUILTY PLEA; DUTY OF COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY TO FOLLOW THE INDIGENT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS DEMARCUS O. JOHNSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 15-CV-1070-MJR vs. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) REAGAN, Chief
More informationFor the People: Allie Rubin, Esq. Assistant District Attorney New York County District Attorney s Office One Hogan Place New York, N.Y.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: CRIMINAL TERM: PART 59 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- x ---- THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, : -against-
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TEXAS COUNTY STATE OF MISSOURI
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TEXAS COUNTY STATE OF MISSOURI BRAD JENNINGS Petitioner. v. Case No.: 16TE-CC00470 JEFF NORMAN Respondent. PETITIONER BRAD JENNINGS MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. In re the Marriage of Tanya Moman and Calvin Moman
C073185 COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT In re the Marriage of Tanya Moman and Calvin Moman TANYA MOMAN, Respondent, v. CALVIN MOMAN, Appellant. Appeal from the Superior
More informationNo UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. ALVIN M. THOMAS, Appellant
NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 16-4069 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ALVIN M. THOMAS, Appellant On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 15-1204 In the Supreme Court of the United States DAVID JENNINGS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-1424 In the Supreme Court of the United States BRIAN FOSTER, PETITIONER, v. ROBERT L. TATUM ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT REPLY
More informationImmigrants Rights Organizations Encourage Members of Congress to Vote No on H.R. 6691, a Retrogressive Mass Incarceration Bill September 5, 2018
Immigrants Rights Organizations Encourage Members of Congress to Vote No on H.R. 6691, a Retrogressive Mass Incarceration Bill September 5, 2018 H.R. 6691 is a retrogressive measure that seeks to expand
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2010 ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D09-1978 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / Opinion filed May 28, 2010 Appeal
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA : : : : : : : : : : PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA ULISES MENDOZA, v. STATE OF GEORGIA, Petitioner, Respondent. Case No. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS COMES NOW, Petitioner, by and through undersigned
More informationNo In the Supreme Court of the United States ARNOLD J. PARKS, ERIK K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent.
No. 13-837 In the Supreme Court of the United States ARNOLD J. PARKS, v. Petitioner, ERIK K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States
More informationSn t~e ~reme ~aurt at t~e i~inite~ ~tate~
No. 09-480 Sn t~e ~reme ~aurt at t~e i~inite~ ~tate~ MATTHEW HENSLEY, Petitioner, Vo UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 10-50176 Document: 00511397581 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/01/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D March 1, 2011 Lyle
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed March 27, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Stephen C.
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 3-009 / 11-0012 Filed March 27, 2013 EARL JAMARE GRIFFIN, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
NO. 12-929 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ATLANTIC MARINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. J-CREW MANAGEMENT, INC. Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States
More informationIn the United States Court of Appeals
No. 16-3397 In the United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT BRENDAN DASSEY, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, v. MICHAEL A. DITTMANN, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. On Appeal From The United States District Court
More informationPRACTICE ADVISORY. April 21, Prolonged Immigration Detention and Bond Eligibility: Diouf v. Napolitano
PRACTICE ADVISORY April 21, 2011 Prolonged Immigration Detention and Bond Eligibility: Diouf v. Napolitano This advisory concerns the Ninth Circuit s recent decision in Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081
More information