Today’s Orders

Friday, December 7th, 2007 1:23 pm | Jason Harrow | Print This Post

This afternoon’s Order List is here. There were 6 granted cases.

Links to the cert. documents and Questions Presented in the 5 paid cases granted today are available after the jump. UPDATE: We’ve added the QP and opinion below in the pauper case granted, Burgess v. US.

Docket: 06-1666
Case name: Munaf v. Geren
Issue: Whether federal courts have jurisdiction to consider a habeas petition of a U.S. citizen detained by U.S.-led coalition forces in Iraq pending a transfer to Iraqi authorities following a conviction in an Iraqi criminal court.

__________________

Docket: 07-208
Case name: Indiana v. Edwards
Issue: Whether the Sixth Amendment grants a defendant found competent to stand trial the right to represent himself in a criminal proceeding.

__________________

Docket: 07-312
Case name: Florida Dept. of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc.
Issue: Whether a state may tax a court-ordered transfer of property from a chapter 11 bankruptcy estate to a third-party purchaser of the bankrupt party’s assets.

__________________

Docket: 07-455
Case name: United States v. Ressam
Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. 1844(h)(2), which mandates 10 years in prison for carrying an explosive during the commission of a felony, requires the explosives to be carried “in relation to” the underlying felony.

__________________

Docket: 07-480
Case name: Huber v. Wal-Mart
Issue: Whether, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, disabled employees must be reassigned to a vacant position for which they are qualified or merely be permitted to apply for such a position.

__________________

Docket: 06-11429
Case name: Burgess v. United States
Opinion Below: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

QP:

1. Whether the term “felony drug offense” as used in federal statutes requiring imposition of enhanced mandatory minimum 20 years’ imprisonment when drug offender has “prior conviction for a felony drug offense” must be read in pari materia with federal statutes defining both “felony” and “felony drug offense”, so as” to require imposition of minimum 20-year sentence only if prior drug conviction as both punishable by more “than one year in prison and characterized as a felony by controlling law.

2. When the court finds that a criminal statute is ambiguous, must it then turn to the rule of lenity to resolve ambiguity?



1 Comment »



  1. In the Burgess v. US petition (granted Dec. 7), isn’t there a somewhat ironic Anders issue. At least from the opinion, it looks like the statutory interpretation issue related to the ability of the defendant’s prior conviction to be treated as a prior “felony” was raised only by an Anders submission. While defense counsel raised the question at sentencing, in the court of appeals he filed an Anders submission suggesting that any appeal was frivolous but noting the existence of the statutory interpretation question. Although a circuit split already surrounded that question, the Fourth Circuit, rather than ask for an advocate’s brief on the issue, only asked the Government to respond and then decided the statutory question on its merits. Defense counsel then apparently continued to believe the issue was “frivolous” - the resulting cert. petition was filed pro se by the defendant. Thus - at least as it appears from the court of appeals’ opinion - the statutory issue is now before the Supreme Court (based on a circuit split) without defense counsel below ever having provided any advocacy on the issue. I wonder if this has this ever happened before?

    Comment by gary myers — December 28, 2007 @ 2:21 pm

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.