Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
US v. Weekes, 07-2209, concerned a challenge to a conviction of defendant for being a felon in possession of a firearm and a 15-year sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act. In affirming the conviction and the sentence, the court held that the juror selection plan in effect at the time of defendant's trial complied with the Sixth Amendment. The court rejected defendant's challenges to several evidentiary rulings. Also, the court held that the district court did not commit plain error in concluding that defendant's two prior drug convictions were serious drug offenses under the ACCA, and that defendant's prior conviction for resisting arrest was a violent felony under the statute. However, the court vacated district court's dismissal of defendant's motion for collateral relief under section 2255, as the district court's ruling on claim of ineffective assistance of counsel as a petition for relief under section 2255 was premature, and thus, should have dismissed it without prejudice.
US v. Sanchez, 09-1906, concerned a challenge to the district court's denial of a motion to suppress a gun and ammunition seized during an inventory search of defendant's motorcycle impounded by the police In a prosecution of defendant for being a felon in possession of a firearm, arising from his arrest for domestic violence. In affirming the judgment under plain view exception to the warrant requirement, the court held that the officers had lawfully reached the position from which they saw the objects that they subsequently seized, that the police had probable cause to believe that crimes had been committed and that the motorcycle and license plate constituted evidence of those crimes. And finally, that the officers were lawfully in the parking lot and could access the motorcycle without trespassing.
Hakim v. Holder, 09-1692, concerned an Indonesian citizen's petition for review of the BIA's decision reversing a grant of applications for asylum and for withholding of removal. In dismissing the petition without prejudice, the court held that here, the petitioner filed a petition for judicial review before the IJ had been afforded the opportunity to determine his eligibility for voluntary departure. Therefore, if the court exercised jurisdiction in this case, it would be permitting petitioner to circumvent the voluntary departure regulation by allowing him to seek both voluntary departure and judicial review.