NGUYEN v. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 3:12-0177. (2012)
Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20120613c82
Visitors: 3
Filed: Jun. 12, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 12, 2012
Summary: ORDER A. RICHARD CAPUTO, District Judge. NOW, this 12 th day of June, 2012, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation to Petitioner's Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 (Doc. 9) is REJECTED. The matter will be RECOMMITTED to the Magistrate Judge for a recommendation on whether Petitioner has provided good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, and if so, whether th
Summary: ORDER A. RICHARD CAPUTO, District Judge. NOW, this 12 th day of June, 2012, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation to Petitioner's Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 (Doc. 9) is REJECTED. The matter will be RECOMMITTED to the Magistrate Judge for a recommendation on whether Petitioner has provided good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, and if so, whether the..
More
ORDER
A. RICHARD CAPUTO, District Judge.
NOW, this 12th day of June, 2012, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation to Petitioner's Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 9) is REJECTED.
The matter will be RECOMMITTED to the Magistrate Judge for a recommendation on whether Petitioner has provided good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, and if so, whether the Government can rebut that showing.
Source: Leagle
