green
Positive treatment
10.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Daniel Magana-Pizano v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
See Hose v. INS, 161 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir.1998).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Bryan K. Kaluna
(6×)
See United States v. Kaluna, 161 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir.1998) (opinion withdrawn) (We incorporate the relevant portions of the withdrawn opinion and attach it as an Appendix to this opinion.).
discussed
Cited "see"
Prado Hernandez v. Reno
See Hose v. INS, 141 F.3d 932, 935 (9th Cir.), withdrawn and reh’g en banc granted, 161 F.3d 1225 (1998); Magana-Pizano v. INS, 152 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir.1998), amended by 159 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir.1998), vacated and remanded, 526 U.S. 1001 , 119 S.Ct. 1137 , 143 L.Ed.2d 206 (1999) (remanded for further consideration in light of Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471 , 119 S.Ct. 936 , 142 L.Ed.2d 940 (1999)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Reynaldo Sandoval v. Janet Reno, Attorney General Doris Meissner, Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service Immigration and Naturalization Service Department of Justice and J. Scott Blackman, Acting District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Reynaldo Sandoval v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
See Hose v. INS, 161 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir.1998). 22 Although the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has not yet reached the question, a district court in that circuit held that neither AEDPA nor IIRIRA deprived it of its jurisdiction under the general habeas provision of 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to hear a similar claim by an alien.
cited
Cited "see"
Farquharson v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
See Hose v. INS, 161 F.3d 1225 , 1998 WL 848048 (9th Cir. Dec.2, 1998). 10 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Richardson v. Reno
See Hose v. INS, 141 F.3d 932, 934-35 (9th Cir.) (holding that INA § 242(g) deprives district court of habeas corpus jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ), withdrawn and reh’g en banc granted, 161 F.3d 1225 (9 th Cir.1998); 88 Cabrera v. Reno, 5 F.Supp.2d 244, 245-46 (D.N.J.1998) (same); Ray v. Reno, 3 F.Supp.2d 1249, 1251 (D.Utah 1998) (same); Rusu v. Reno, 999 F.Supp. 1204, 1209-10 (N.D.Ill.1998) (same); Mendez-Tapia v. Sonchik, 998 F.Supp. 1105, 1107 (D.Ariz.1998) (same); Marriott v. Ingham, 990 F.Supp. 209, 213-14 (W.D.N.Y.1998) (same); Mustata v. United States Dep’t of Justice…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Austin Carey
Utah 1999) (concluding that § 2.17(a)(3)’s permit exception is an element of the offense in part because “the United States, as the issuer of the permit, would be in the best position to demonstrate the non-existence of such authorization”); see also United States v. Kaluna, 152 F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting the government’s “ready access to official files and records” in a discussion of the allocation of burden of proof), withdrawn on grant of reh’g en banc, 161 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 1998).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Austin Carey
Utah 1999) (concluding that § 2.17(a)(3)’s permit exception is an element of the offense in part because “the United States, as the issuer of the permit, would be in the best position to demonstrate the non-existence of such authorization”); see also United States v. Kaluna, 152 F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting the government’s “ready access to official files and records” in a discussion of the allocation of burden of proof), withdrawn on grant of reh’g en banc, 161 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 1998).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hinojosa-Perez v. Eddy
Compare Hose v. INS, 141 F.3d 932 (9th Cir.1998), withdrawn and reh’g en banc granted, 161 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir.1998), with Magana-Pizano v. INS, 152 F.3d 1213, 1216-17 (9th Cir.1998), as amended, 159 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir.1998), vacated and remanded for reconsideration, — U.S. —, 119 S.Ct. 1137 , 143 L.Ed.2d 206 (1999). 3 The magistrate judge wrestled with these opinions in his initial report and recommendation.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
(2×)
Compare Hose v. INS, 141 F. 3d 932, 935 (CA9) (habeas not available), withdrawn and reh'g en banc granted, 161 F. 3d 1225 (1998), Richardson v. Reno, 162 F. 3d 1338 (CA11 1998) (same), and Yang v. INS, 109 F. 3d 1185, 1195 (CA7 1997) (same), with Goncalves v. Reno, 144 F. 3d 110, 122 (CA1 1998) (habeas available), and Henderson v. INS, 157 F. 3d 106, 117-122 (CA2 1998) (same).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Bryan K. KALUNA, Defendant-Appellant
v.
Bryan K. KALUNA, Defendant-Appellant
96-10527.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Dec 4, 1998.
Hug.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
ORDER
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion, United States [*1226] v. Kaluna, slip op. at 8307, 152 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir.1998), is withdrawn.