Brian D. Lerner Immigration Attorney & Deportation Lawyer Blog

Another case just issued regarding the Immigration Judge:

NINTH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

-Criminal Law and Procedure-
A challenge to a restitution order by a custodial state prisoner who does not challenge the lawfulness of his custody under federal law is insufficient for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. Physical custody alone is insufficient to confer jurisdiction.
Bailey v. Hill – filed March 25, 2010
Cite as 09-35450
Full text http://ping.fm/Zqfep

-Criminal Law and Procedure-
Word “person” in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1028A(a)(1) refers to both living and deceased persons. Statute does not require government to prove defendant used the identification of a person he knew to be alive at the time defendant stole that person’s identity.
United States v. Maciel-Alcala – filed March 25, 2010
Cite as 09-50038
Full text http://ping.fm/Gx6uk

-Criminal Law and Procedure-
A district court has discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences after revocation of multiple concurrent terms of supervised release. Where defendant violated concurrent terms of supervised release, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3624(e) did not prohibit district court from imposing consecutive sentences of imprisonment.
United States v. Xinidakis – filed March 25, 2010
Cite as 09-50307
Full text http://ping.fm/kYMhs

-Criminal Law and Procedure-
District court did not err in subjecting state’s parole revocation hearings to balancing test weighing a releasee’s interest in his constitutionally guaranteed right to confrontation against government’s good cause for denying it. Even if hearsay falls within a recognized exception, it is still subject to balancing as an indicia of reliability and subject to good cause analysis. Balancing test does not elevate the due process rights of parolees to those of criminal defendants. Conditional due process rights of parolees can be justifiably denied–and hearsay can be admitted–if government’s good cause is sufficient. Hearsay used to corroborate other hearsay remains subject to balancing test. Where state had not fully complied with requirements of an earlier injunction, district court had “ample authority to go beyond earlier orders” to ensure compliance. Special master did not use judicial notice to bypass the process of authenticating documents on which he relied where authenticity of those documents was not challenged by either party. Master’s findings based on observations by employees and observers–statements made with personal knowledge that were not made out-of-court–were not based on inadmissible hearsay. Where a state law is found to conflict with a federal injunction, federalism principles require reconciliation of the state law and federal injunction unless that state law violates a federal law or the injunction is necessary to remedy a constitutional violation.
Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger – filed March 25, 2010
Cite as 08-15889
Full text http://ping.fm/tA5uT

-Immigration Law-
Immigration judge had no authority to grant alien a form of interim visa relief that was previously made available to immigrant victims of crime. Only U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had jurisdiction over alien’s request for interim relief.

Criminal laws and procedures

Criminal lawyer

Crimes and immigration 

Criminal and immigration lawyer must work together to help you

Filed under: Criminal Laws and Procedures | Tagged: criminal, criminal attorney, Criminal Laws and Procedures, criminal lawyer, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer |