Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

375 F.3d 351

Docket No. 03-30859.

Shokeh v. Thompson

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided June 22, 2004.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 2004-06-22

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 2015

2 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on United States v. Munsingwear, Inc. · United States v. Miller · Murphy v. Fort Worth Independent School District

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 2004-06-22

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Mousa Elias Salameh Shokeh, Lake Charles, LA, pro se.

¶2Thomas Burton Thompson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Lafayette, LA, for Respondents-Ap-pellees.

¶3Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM:

¶5Mousa Elias Salameh Shokeh (“Sho-keh”) appeals the district court’s denial of his pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition, arguing that the district court erred in holding that his post-removal-order release was permissibly conditioned on his posting $5,000 bond. An opinion in this case was filed on May 10, 2004. Before the mandate was issued, however, facts became available to the Court that renders the case moot: on March 12, 2004, Shokeh was released without bond. As a result, we VACATE the previously filed opinion in this case. See United States v. Miller, 685 F.2d 123, 124 (5th Cir.1982). Further, we VACATE the district court’s ruling, and DISMISS the action. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39, 71 *352S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950); Murphy v. Fort Worth Indep. Sch. Dist., 334 F.3d 470, 471 (5th Cir.2003).

/375/f3d/351 · .json · Public domain