[ORAL ARGUMENT NOT SCHEDULED] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT : : : : MOTION TO GOVERN

Similar documents
[NOT SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. Appellants-Cross-Appellees. Nos , ,

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

[ORAL ARGUMENT HELD ON APRIL 15, 2016] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. Defendants-Appellees.

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 07/19/2011 Page 1 of 8 [NOT SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] No

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

CaseM:06-cv VRW Document716 Filed03/19/10 Page1 of 8

[ORAL ARGUMENT ON REMAND HELD APRIL 22, 2010] Nos , , , , ,

[SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT APRIL 11, 2011] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 1:05-cv UNA Document 365 Filed 01/29/13 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 2, No (and consolidated cases) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 27, No and Consolidated Cases

No (and consolidated cases) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case: Document: 16 Filed: 04/23/2012 Pages: 6. Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Case: Document: Filed: 12/22/2010 Page: 1. [NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] No , No (consolidated)

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

Follow this and additional works at:

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

[ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 15, 2010] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No (consolidated with No )

ORAL ARGUMENT HELD DECEMBER 10, 2013 DECIDED APRIL 15, 2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In The Supreme Court of the United States

New York County Clerk s Index Nos /15 and /16. Court of Appeals STATE OF NEW YORK >>

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT SHAFIQ RASUL, ET AL.,

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED: OCTOBER 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 09/09/2014 Page 1 of 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI No.2013 CT SCT 2013-CT SCT. MILTON TROTTER, Appellant. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, Appellee

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY Telephone:

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Plaintiff Appellee,

MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI`I

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER; JANN DEMARS; JOHN CECI; STEVEN HYDER; SALINA HYDER, No.

CASE NO. 12- CAPITAL CASE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JOHN FERGUSON. Petitioner,

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER AND HOLD CASES IN ABEYANCE

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Nos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Tel: (202)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORAL ARGUMENT HELD ON MARCH 31, Case No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. No. LIGHTING BALLAST CONTROL LLC, Applicant, v. UNIVERSAL LIGHTING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Respondent.

[ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 16, 2012] No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 1:09-cv RCL Document 1908 Filed 07/02/18 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MARCH 31, No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:05-cv UNA Document 351 Filed 03/07/14 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Petitioner, : : v.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND EMERGENCY RETURN OF CHILD PACKET

Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

Supreme Court of the United States

No. 16A-450 CAPITAL CASE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. THOMAS D. ARTHUR, Petitioner, v. STATE OF ALABAMA, Respondent.

Case M:06-cv VRW Document 151 Filed 02/01/2007 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MARCH 31, No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

NO: INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 2014 DANAE. TUOMI, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

Supreme Court of the United States

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 1990)

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR STAY PENDING SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS

[NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI LOWE S HOME CENTER, INC. BRIEF OF APPELLANT ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT DEFEENDANT-APPELLEE S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR MAY 7, 2014 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

In the Supreme Court of the United States. District of Columbia and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Petitioners, Dick Heller, et al.

Case 2:17-cv WB Document 85 Filed 12/10/18 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 1:05-cv CKK Document 295 Filed 11/19/12 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC (4 th DCA 4D ) MALCOLM HOSWELL, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.

No CAPITAL CASE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. THOMAS D. ARTHUR, Petitioner, v. STATE OF ALABAMA, Respondent.

No In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT APPELLANT S MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL

BEFORE THE UNITED STATATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Transcription:

USCA Case #10-5203 Document #1374021 Filed 05/16/2012 Page 1 of 5 [ORAL ARGUMENT NOT SCHEDULED] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT x MOHAMMED SULAYMON BARRE, Appellant, v. BARACK OBAMA, et al., Appellees. x No. 10-5203 MOTION TO GOVERN Appellant Mohammed Sulaymon Barre, by and through his undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this motion to govern future proceedings, pursuant to the Court s order of December 2, 2011. The Court should remand this case to the district court for consideration of Gul v. Obama, 652 F.3d 12 (D.C. Cir. 2011), and deny Appellees motion for summary affirmance dated August 29, 2011. Argument Mr. Barre appeals from the summary dismissal of his habeas corpus petition as moot following his transfer from Guantánamo Bay to the Republic of Somaliland in December 2009. This Court subsequently consolidated Mr. Barre s appeal with a small number of other post-transfer detainee appeals, and held those

USCA Case #10-5203 Document #1374021 Filed 05/16/2012 Page 2 of 5 cases in abeyance pending its resolution of post-transfer detainee appeals in Gul v. Obama, D.C. Cir. Nos. 10-5117. In July 2011, this Court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas petitions in Gul. Gul v. Obama, 652 F.3d 12 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Appellees thereafter filed a motion for summary affirmance of the remaining consolidated post-transfer appeals. The appellants in those cases, including Mr. Barre, requested further abeyance pending U.S. Supreme Court review of Gul, or, in the alternative, remand to the district court for consideration of Gul. Pursuant to its December 2, 2011 order, the Court ordered continuing abeyance until 30 days after the disposition by the Supreme Court of any petition for a writ of certiorari in Gul, and deferred the motion for summary affirmance pending further order of the Court. On April 16, 2012, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Gul. In light of that ruling, Mr. Barre requests that this Court remand this case to this district court for application of Gul, in the first instance, to the unique facts and circumstances of his case. As set forth in his August 30, 2011 motion to govern and his September 9, 2011 opposition to Appellees motion for summary affirmance, the Court should order remand for several reasons, including because (1) this Court proceeded in Gul as if the collateral consequences doctrine applies to Guantánamo detainee habeas cases (analyzing and rejecting each of the Gul petitioners claimed collateral consequences); (2) such a fact-specific analysis of - 2 -

USCA Case #10-5203 Document #1374021 Filed 05/16/2012 Page 3 of 5 individualized claims of collateral consequences has never taken place in this case; and (3) Mr. Barre has suffered unique, redressable injuries as a collateral consequence of his continued inability to confront the false allegations leveled against him in connection with his prior detention at Guantánamo, which Gul did not address. Such injuries include, for example, the U.S. government s refusal to provide an OFAC license to his counsel to provide various forms of support to him aimed at facilitating his readjustment to life after Guantánamo, via correspondence conveying the clear implication that counsel or similarly-inclined third parties would risk criminal sanctions for providing any assistance to Mr. Barre based on his prior detention at Guantánamo. Indeed, the government has not specifically addressed this claim or disputed that such harm would be redressable by a district court order granting Mr. Barre s habeas petition. At the very least, Mr. Barre should have a chance to present those specific claims of collateral consequences, which neither the district court nor this Court in Gul has addressed, to the district court for consideration in light of Gul. Conclusion Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth in Mr. Barre s prior submissions, this motion to govern should be granted and this case should be remanded to the district court. The motion for summary affirmance should likewise be denied. - 3 -

USCA Case #10-5203 Document #1374021 Filed 05/16/2012 Page 4 of 5 Dated New York, New York May 16, 2012 Respectfully submitted, /s/ sdk Shayana D. Kadidal [Bar No. 49512] J. Wells Dixon [Bar No. 51138] CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, New York 10012 Tel (212) 614-6438 Fax (212) 614-6499 skadidal@ccrjustice.org wdixon@ccrjustice.org Counsel for Appellant Mohammed Sulaymon Barre - 4 -

USCA Case #10-5203 Document #1374021 Filed 05/16/2012 Page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 16, 2012, I caused the foregoing Motion to Govern to be filed with the Court and served on counsel for all parties, including without limitation counsel listed below, by using the appellate CM/ECF system. Robert M. Loeb, Esq. Benjamin S. Kingsley, Esq. U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Room 7268 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20530-0001 (202) 353-8253 robert.loeb@usdoj.gov benjamin.s.kingsley@usdoj.gov Counsel for Appellees /s/ sdk Shayana D. Kadidal - 5 -