United States v. Oscar Rivero-Nunez
This text of 605 F.2d 152 (United States v. Oscar Rivero-Nunez) 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.
Opinion
Appellant Rivero-Nunez seeks to appeal from an order of the district court staying an order of the Magistrate in a F.R.Crim.P. Rule 40(b) matter. The Magistrate had ordered a hearing on defendant’s claim that his presence in the district had been unlawfully secured.
A removal order is not an appealable order. U. S. v. McCray, 458 F.2d 389 (CA9, 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 865, 93 S.Ct. 158, 34 L.Ed.2d 113; In re Ellsberg, 446 F.2d 954 (CA1,1971); Galloway v. U. S., 302 F.2d 457 (CA10, 1962); C. Wright, 3 Federal Practice and Procedure § 653 at 11 (1969). Nor do we perceive that an order of a district judge staying a proposed hearing on a removal order is appealable.
We, therefore, deny the motion of the United States to expedite the appeal and order the appeal dismissed.
We express no opinion on whether a district court has jurisdiction to reverse or revise a Rule 40(b) order of a Magistrate. See Bruno v. Hamilton, 521 F.2d 114 (CA8, 1975); United States v. Canada, 440 F.Supp. 22 (N.D.Ill., 1977).
The appeal is DISMISSED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
605 F.2d 152, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-oscar-rivero-nunez-ca5-1979.