Narrative Opinion Summary
The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the appellant's petition under D.C. Code Ann. 16-1901, determining that the appellant does not qualify as “a person committed, detained, confined, or restrained from his lawful liberty within the District.” Relevant case law supporting this conclusion includes McCall v. Swain, Blair-Bey v. Quick, and Taylor v. Washington. Additionally, the motion for release pending appeal was deemed moot. The court specified that this decision will not be published under D.C. Circuit Rule 36 and instructed the Clerk to withhold the issuance of the mandate for seven days following any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(b) and D.C. Circuit Rule 41.
Legal Issues Addressed
Definition of Persons Eligible to File Under D.C. Code Ann. 16-1901subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed that the appellant did not meet the statutory criteria to file a petition under the relevant D.C. Code, as they were not considered 'a person committed, detained, confined, or restrained from his lawful liberty within the District.'
Reasoning: The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the appellant's petition under D.C. Code Ann. 16-1901, determining that the appellant does not qualify as 'a person committed, detained, confined, or restrained from his lawful liberty within the District.'
Issuance of Mandate in Appellate Proceduresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court instructed the Clerk to withhold the issuance of the mandate for seven days post any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, aligning with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(b) and D.C. Circuit Rule 41.
Reasoning: The court specified that this decision will not be published under D.C. Circuit Rule 36 and instructed the Clerk to withhold the issuance of the mandate for seven days following any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(b) and D.C. Circuit Rule 41.
Mootness of Motion for Release Pending Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found the appellant's motion for release pending appeal to be moot, indicating that the circumstances no longer presented a live controversy requiring resolution.
Reasoning: Additionally, the motion for release pending appeal was deemed moot.
Unpublished Opinions Under D.C. Circuit Rule 36subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court decided not to publish this decision, following D.C. Circuit Rule 36, which governs the publication of opinions.
Reasoning: The court specified that this decision will not be published under D.C. Circuit Rule 36.