Here is the order.
This could be a case to watch if the dicta in United States v. Lara is to be believed.
Alvarez v. Tracey
Third Consecutive Sentencing Decision from Arizona Federal Courts — Alvarez v. Tracey
Here are the materials:
Order on Motion for Partial SJ 03-31-11
An excerpt:
The Court concludes that, for purposes of § 1302(7), two charges are differentoffenses if each “requires proof of a fact which the other does not,” regardless of whetherthey arise from the same transaction. See Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304. Applying thisdefinition to Petitioner’s case, § 1302(7) has not been violated by his convictions andpunishment. Petitioner’s own description suggests that each offense required proof of a factthat the others did not. The Court will accept the R&R and deny Petitioner’s motion forpartial summary judgment.
Habeas Case on Consecutive Sentences out of Gila River
These cases are all going badly for tribal governments. It’ll be interesting to see if the appellate courts really get into the question.
This is Alvarez v. Tracey (D. Ariz.) — Alvarez-Gila River Case
Turtle Talk 