Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

No Federal Constitutional Right To Parole, and Other Criminal and Immigration Cases

By FindLaw Staff on May 04, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In Casares-Castellon v. Holder, No. 05-76788, the court of appeals granted petitioner's petition for review of the BIA's order deeming petitioner's timely-filed application for relief under former INA section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. section 1182(c) (repealed 1996), abandoned for failure to submit documents supporting his request for relief within the time prescribed, on the ground that 8 C.F.R. section 1003.31(c) plainly limited any waiver to the actual application or document not timely filed.

In US v. Struckman, No. 08-30463, the court of appeals reversed defendant's firearm possession conviction, on the ground that exigent circumstances did not justify the police's warrantless arrest and entry into defendant's backyard, and thus the firearm should have been suppressed, because police officers must either obtain a warrant or consent to enter before arresting a person inside a home or its curtilage or make a reasonable attempt to ascertain that he is actually a trespasser before making the arrest.

In US v. Stever, No. 09-30004, the court of appeals reversed defendant's drug conspiracy conviction, on the grounds that 1) the evidence as to which defendant requested discovery, if it existed, tended to show that a Mexican drug trafficking organization (DTO), not defendant, planted the marijuana at issue; and 2) the combination of this discovery ruling and the in limine exclusion of all evidence about Mexican DTOs violated his Sixth Amendment right to present a defense.

Hayward v. Marshall, No. 06-55392, involved a habeas petition challenging the denial of petitioner's parole.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of the petition, on the grounds that 1) a prisoner must obtain a certificate of appealability from administrative decisions such as denial of parole and prison transfer; 2) in the absence of state law establishing otherwise, there was no federal constitutional requirement that parole be granted in the absence of "some evidence" of future dangerousness or anything else; and 3) there was some evidence of petitioner's future dangerousness.

Related Resources

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard