Fifth Circuit: USA v. Emakoji

 

Court's order requiring an in-person appearance at arraignment is not subject to interlocutory review under the criminal collateral order rule.

Court's requirement that the deft secure housing within the district of the court was a reasonable amendment to the release conditions, given the deft's reluctance to travel during a time of pandemic disease.  Due Process did not require a hearing, or a finding of a violation of the prior conditions.

Concur/dissent: a requirement to secure new housing four days before an arraignment with presumptive incarceration isn't ripe for review, as a subsequent release condition wouldn't be a modification but a new finding.

Dicta: Court did not sufficiently take into account administrative determination that in-person hearings presented a danger. 

USA v. Emakoji

Second Circuit: United States v. Traficante

Above-guidelines sentence was sufficiently explained to be procedurally reasonable as either a variance or a departure; substantively reasonable, given similar precedent and previous bad acts.\\

As the judicial order that modifies a certain sentencing condition interposes a finding by a District Court, challenge to the order is reserved for that step, and is not ripe until then.

United States v. Traficante

Second Circuit: D’Addario v. D’Addario, et al.

Although a claimant's claim against the estate is not yet ripe, as its present lack of value might change, a claim based on the claimant's collection expenses is sufficiently final.

Estate, which as a matter of state law is an inchoate entity, can serve as the nexus for a civil RICO association-in-fact.


http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/aa7d1353-0417-45d3-8cb2-69fbe6d60e55/1/doc/17-1162_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/aa7d1353-0417-45d3-8cb2-69fbe6d60e55/1/hilite/

Federal Circuit: Martin v. US

Prior to claiming a statutory private easement in public land along a public right of way, claimants must avail themselves of any available special use permit offered by the land manager; denial of such an application makes the case ripe for judicial review.

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201616544.op2.pdf