17-3904 United States v. Ventura UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 6th day of September, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: PETER W. HALL, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges. JANE A. RESTANI, Judge.* _________________________________________ United States of America, Appellant, v. No. 17-3904-cr Saba Rosario Ventura, Defendant-Appellee. _________________________________________ *Judge Jane A. Restani of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. For Appellant: FRANK TURNER BUFORD, Assistant United States Attorney (David C. James, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief) for Richard P. Donoghue, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, New York Appellee: S. ISAAC WHEELER, Federal Defenders of New York, New York, New York This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Irizarry, C.J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the case is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this order. The government appeals the November 3, 2017 decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Irizarry, C.J.) ordering that either the government release Defendant-Appellee Saba Rosario Ventura on bond conditions previously set by the court or that the indictment charging Ventura with illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 be dismissed with prejudice. We have carefully reviewed the district court’s order. We are unable to determine whether its decision rested on a finding that Ventura’s continued detention by U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement (“ICE”) following entry of the district court’s order releasing Ventura under the Bail Reform Act (“BRA”) was pretextual, in bad faith, or otherwise undertaken with the illegitimate purpose of detaining Ventura for criminal prosecution and not to effectuate his removal. We decide, therefore, that a Jacobson remand for the purpose of 2 supplementing the record on this sole issue is appropriate. See United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19, 22 (2d Cir. 1994). On April 7, 2017, Ventura arrived in the United States at John F. Kennedy International Airport and was taken into custody after U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) determined that he was a citizen of the Dominican Republic who had been previously removed from the United States. Ventura was paroled for prosecution ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals