Maria Pizano De Preciado v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 842 F.2d 240 (9th Cir. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
Maria Pizano De Preciado v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 842 F.2d 240 (9th Cir. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Achbani, Lahbib (ca7, 2007-11-08)
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Achbani, Lahbib
7th Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
We believe 1 See United States v. DeValle, 894 F.2d 133, 137 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Songer, 842 F.2d 240, 242 (10th Cir. 1988); United States v. Curtis, 523 F.2d 1134, 1135 (D.C.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Achbani
7th Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
See United States v. DeValle, 894 F.2d 133, 137 (5th Cir.1990); United States v. Songer, 842 F.2d 240, 242 (10th Cir.1988); United States v. Curtis, 523 F.2d 1134, 1135 (D.C.Cir.1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tweedy v. State (2×)
Md. · 2004 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Lastra, 973 F.2d 952, 956 (D.C.Cir.1992) (holding that Rule 43 mandates that the defendant be present "for all but the most ministerial of sentencing actions”); United States v. Ammar, 919 F.2d 13, 17 (3d Cir.1990) (stating that "[a]lthough sentencing in absentia should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances, under certain circumstances a defendant may waive his right to be present”); United States v. Songer, 842 F.2d 240, 244 (10th Cir.1988) (noting that "[t]he rule that the defendant must attend his sentencing is not subject to any exception”); United S…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Jones (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Pa. · 1992 · confidence medium
Commonwealth v. Saunders, 483 Pa. 29 , 394 A.2d 522 (1978). [4] See, e.g., United States v. Songer, 842 F.2d 240, 244 (10th Cir.1988) (defendant must be present during sentencing under analogous Fed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Norman D. Wright, United States of America v. George W. Kirby, Jr.
10th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442, 455 , 32 S.Ct. 250, 253 , 56 L.Ed. 500 (1912); United States v. Songer, 842 F.2d 240, 242 (10th Cir.1988); United States v. Tortora, 464 F.2d 1202, 1208 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1063 , 93 S.Ct. 554 , 34 L.Ed.2d 516 (1972).
discussed Cited "see" Abeyta v. State (2×)
Wyo. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See, for example, United States v. Songer, 842 F.2d 240, 243-44 (10th Cir.1988) and State v. Koopmans, 210 Wis.2d 670 , 563 N.W.2d 528, 532-33 (1997).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Edmondson (2×)
E.D. Tex. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Songer, 842 F.2d 240, 242-244 (10th Cir.1988) (examining the differences between the confrontation clause and Rule 43(a)).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Joseph v. Libretti, Jr.
10th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
United States v. Elgersma, 971 F.2d 690, 694 (11th Cir.1992) ( 21 U.S.C. § 853 (a) makes clear that forfeiture is part of punishment); United States v. Hernandez-Escarsega, 886 F.2d 1560, 1577 (9th Cir.1989) (same), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1003 , 110 S.Ct. 3237 , 111 L.Ed.2d 748 (1990); United States v. Sandini, 816 F.2d 869, 875 (3d Cir.1987) (same); see United States v. Songer, 842 F.2d 240, 241 (10th Cir.1988) (forfeiture treated as part of sentence). 4 Although the district court has jurisdiction to consider third party claims to property, see 21 U.S.C. § 853 (n) (providing means for thir…
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Maria Guadalupe Devalle
5th Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Songer, 842 F.2d 240 (10th Cir.1988); Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal 2d § 723 at 25-26 (“If the defendant has voluntarily absented himself, the court is authorized to proceed only up to the return of the verdict.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. One 1980 Cadillac
Utah · 2001 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Songer, 842 F.2d 240 (10th Cir.1988); United States v. Robinson, 8 F.3d 418 (7th Cir.1993); United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43 , 114 S.Ct. 492 , 126 L.Ed.2d 490 (1993).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Maria Pizano DE PRECIADO, Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
86-7663.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Mar 31, 1988.
842 F.2d 240
1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 3951
Fletcher, Reinhardt, Brunetti.
Published

ORDER

Since June 22, 1986, proceedings in this case have been at a standstill pending word from the parties concerning disposition of petitioner’s application for legalization under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The court has ordered and has now received memoranda from both parties concerning the status of petitioner’s application.

Because of the potential length of time until the final disposition of petitioner’s application, a system of repeated status reports and a continued stay is not wholly satisfactory for the Court or for the petitioner. Therefore, in twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this order, we will dismiss this petition without prejudice to reinstatement. We will withhold the court’s mandate, however, for twenty-eight (28) days after disposition of the petitioner’s legalization application, but will not withhold the mandate any longer than one year from the entry of the dismissal order. Withholding the mandate will stay the final order of deportation.

If the legalization application is denied or is still pending at the conclusion of the one year period, the petitioner shall have twenty-eight (28) days to move to reinstate the petition or, alternatively, to extend the stay of the mandate. If the petitioner does not move for reinstatement or for an extension of the stay of the mandate within the twenty-eight days and fails to do so after receiving a 30 day notification from this court, the petition will be deemed dismissed with prejudice, and the mandate will issue.

Any objections to the procedure outlined above must be filed within 21 days from the date of this order. The objection should clearly explain why the petitioner would be prejudiced by this procedure.