Berishaj v. Schremp

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJune 14, 2002
Docket00-31063
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of Berishaj v. Schremp (Berishaj v. Schremp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Berishaj v. Schremp, (5th Cir. 2002).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-31063 Summary Calendar

VICTOR BERISHAJ,

Petitioner- Appellant,

versus

ROY SCHREMP; KEVIN D. ROONEY, ACTING COMMISSIONER, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondents- Appellees.

--------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 00-CV-985 ---------------------------------------------------------- June 13, 2002

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Victor Berishaj, # A19561068, a citizen of Yugoslavia det ained by the Immigration and

Naturalization Service (INS) pending execution of his removal order, appeals the district court’s

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. Berishaj has moved for appointment of

counsel on appeal. We DENY this request as moot.

Berishaj’s habeas petition asserted, inter alia, that his continued detention by the INS was

unlawful because his deportation was not foreseeable. Because the district court’s rejection of

Berishaj’s habeas petition was based on its application of this court’s now-vacated opinion in

Zadvydas v. Underdown, 185 F.3d 279, 294, 297 (5th Cir. 1999), it is hereby VACATED. See

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 702 (2001). This case is REMANDED to the district court for

further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s Zadvydas decision. The district court may

draw further guidance from our disposition, on remand, in Zadvydas v. Davis, F.3d (5th Cir.

Mar. 12, 2002), 2002 WL 385663 at *5.

VACATED AND REMANDED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ON

APPEAL DENIED AS MOOT.

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Zadvydas v. Davis
533 U.S. 678 (Supreme Court, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Berishaj v. Schremp, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berishaj-v-schremp-ca5-2002.