Here is yesterday’s opinion in Romero v. Goodrich.
Briefs are here.
An excerpt:
Ronald F. Romero, an enrolled member of the Pueblo of Nambé, through counsel filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1303 to seek relief after a tribal court conviction. The district court dismissed Romero’s petition as moot after the Pueblo commuted Romero’s sentence to time served and released him from tribal custody. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm.
Here are the materials (the order denying review is here):
Combined Opposition to En Banc Petition
The panel materials and opinion are here.
Here are the opening briefs in Romero v. Goodrich:
Here are the lower court materials.
Here is the opinion in Miranda v. Anchando:
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.
Here are the materials:
Opening brief is here, and lower court materials here.
Details here, from the Bustamante filing:
Respondents argue that because Mr. Bustamante has completed his sentence and been released from custody, and because Mr. Bustamante’s habeas petition challenges only the length of his sentence, his appeal should be dismissed on grounds of mootness. Upon review of Respondents’ motion and pertinent authorities, including North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244 (1971), Mr. Bustamante, by and through undersigned counsel, agrees with Respondents’ contention and does not oppose Respondents’ motion.
Turtle Talk 