In US v. Epstein, No. 09-4025, the court held that prior terms of imprisonment for violations of supervised release do not limit the maximum sentence a district court may impose for a subsequent violation of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. section 3583(e)(3), as amended by the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (PROTECT Act).
In Allied Maritime, Inc. v. Descatrade SA, No. 09-5329, the court affirmed an order vacating the process of maritime attachment and garnishment issued on April 15, 2009 attaching defendant's assets to secure a putative foreign arbitral award and the dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, on the ground that the district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over defendant's bank account in Paris, France, the suspense account created by the bank in response to the attachment order, and any other intangible property arising from an electronic funds transfer.
In Luna v. Holder, No. 07-3796, the court transferred petitions for review of final orders of removal to the district court for further proceedings, holding that 1) although the petitions are untimely, the REAL ID Act did not divest district courts of habeas jurisdiction to consider petitioners' claims that they were prevented by circumstances beyond their control from filing timely petitions for review; and 2) thus, the circuit court need not decide whether the statutory 30-day filing requirement violates the Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution in cases in which an alien misses the deadline because of ineffective assistance of counsel or circumstances created by the government.
- Full Text of US v. Epstein, No. 09-4025
- Full Text of Allied Maritime, Inc. v. Descatrade SA, No. 09-5329
- Full Text of Luna v. Holder, No. 07-3796