United States v. Harry E. Claiborne, Harry E. Claiborne v. Warren E. Burger, in the Matter of Harry E. Claiborne

Good Law
790 F.2d 1355
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 27, 198686-2018, 86-7267 and 86-8089California1,507 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fletcher, J.

ORDER

Petitioner Harry E. Claiborne has filed petitions for a stay of execution of his sentence directly with this Court. (Nos. 86-7267, 86-8089). He has also filed an appeal from the district court’s denial of a stay of execution of his sentence. (No. 86-2018). The district court has pending petitioner’s motion to vacate his conviction, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (D.Nev. No. CR-R-83-57).

Having heard argument of counsel, this Court denies the stays requested directly from this court and affirms the district court’s denial of stay. A stay of execution of sentence after appeals are exhausted is reserved for extraordinary cases. We conclude that Petitioner’s likelihood of success, including success on his primary contention that a judge cannot be imprisoned prior to impeachment and removal, is not great. See United States v. Claiborne, 727 F.2d 842, 845-49 (9th Cir.1984); United States v. Claiborne, 765 F.2d 784, 789-90 (9th Cir.1985). Nor do the other relevant considerations constitute the extraordinary circumstances required for a stay.

Stays DENIED. District court’s denial of stay AFFIRMED.

I respectfully dissent. Whether a federal judge can be imprisoned prior to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.