Rancourt v. Holder

D.C. Circuit

Rancourt v. Holder

589 F. App'x 540

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 2, 2014

DocketNo. 13-5341

StatusPublished

This text of 589 F. App'x 540 (Rancourt v. Holder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rancourt v. Holder, 589 F. App'x 540 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s dismissal order filed September 20, 2013 be affirmed. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and the First Circuit have held that appellants lack standing to challenge the Jacob Wetterling Act. See Doe v. United States Attorney General, 657 F.Supp.2d 315, 317-18 (D.Mass.2009), aff'd, No. 09-2388, unpublished judgment (1st Cir. Mar. 8, 2010). Preclusion principles apply to jurisdictional determinations, see, e.g., Kasap v. Folger Nolan Fleming & Douglas, Inc., 166 F.3d 1243, 1248 (D.C.Cir.1999); Cutler v. Hayes, 818 F.2d 879, 888-89 (D.C.Cir.1987), and appellants have not shown that United States v. Kebodeaux, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2496, 186 L.Ed.2d 540 (2013), and Bond v. United States, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2355, 180 L.Ed.2d 269 (2011), prevent application of those principles here.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

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

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s dismissal order filed September 20, 2013 be affirmed. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and the First Circuit have held that appellants lack standing to challenge the Jacob Wetterling Act. See Doe v. United States Attorney General, 657 F.Supp.2d 315, 317-18 (D.Mass.2009), aff'd, No. 09-2388, unpublished judgment (1st Cir. Mar. 8, 2010). Preclusion principles apply to jurisdictional determinations, see, e.g., Kasap v. Folger Nolan Fleming & Douglas, Inc., 166 F.3d 1243, 1248 (D.C.Cir.1999); Cutler v. Hayes, 818 F.2d 879, 888-89 (D.C.Cir.1987), and appellants have not shown that United States v. Kebodeaux, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2496, 186 L.Ed.2d 540 (2013), and Bond v. United States, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2355, 180 L.Ed.2d 269 (2011), prevent application of those principles here.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

589 F. App'x 540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rancourt-v-holder-cadc-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack