United States v. Abdul K. Jafaru, 35 F.3d 569 (7th Cir. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Abdul K. Jafaru, 35 F.3d 569 (7th Cir. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“wag-aero also charges that the faa's circulation of the questionnaire violated the paperwork reduction act, but it has no standing under the act to bring this claim.”
17 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ohio Stands Up! v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (ohnd, 2021-09-28)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Ohio Stands Up! v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
N.D. Ohio · 2021 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
wag-aero also charges that the faa's circulation of the questionnaire violated the paperwork reduction act, but it has no standing under the act to bring this claim.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Hodgson v. Mississippi Department of Corrections
E.D. Wis. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Wag-Aero, Inc. v. United States, 837 F.Supp. 1479, 1484-87 (E.D.Wis.1993), aff'd, 35 F.3d 569 (7th Cir.1994).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Abdul K. Jafaru
94-1528.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Sep 7, 1994.
35 F.3d 569
Unpublished
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 61%
Citer courts: N.D. Ohio (1)

35 F.3d 569

NOTICE: Seventh Circuit Rule 53(b)(2) states unpublished orders shall not be cited or used as precedent except to support a claim of res judicata, collateral estoppel or law of the case in any federal court within the circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Abdul K. JAFARU, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 94-1528.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 9, 1994.
Decided Sept. 7, 1994.

Before POSNER, Chief Judge, and CUMMINGS and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

We remanded this criminal case for an evidentiary hearing and determination whether the prosecution had deliberately provoked a mistrial because it wanted another opportunity to prosecute defendant Jafaru. United States v. Oseni, 996 F.2d 186 (7th Cir.1993). On remand the district judge conducted an evidentiary hearing and concluded on the basis of it that the prosecution, while acting imprudently, had not engaged in the form of conduct that alone would bar reprosecution on double-jeopardy grounds, and she therefore reinstated the judgment, from which Jafaru has appealed. The district judge applied the correct legal standard and neither her factual determinations nor her application of the standard to the facts as found by her is clearly erroneous. No purpose would be served by a further discussion; the district judge's 12-page opinion furnishes a complete and adequate justification of her conclusions.

2

AFFIRMED.