Min Hu v. JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Department of Justice

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7587
MIN HU,
Petitioner - Appellee,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Department of
Justice; DOUGLAS C. DEVENYNS, Warden, Wicomico
County Detention Center,
Respondents - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-
01-981-CCB)
Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: March 26, 2004
Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed, vacated, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Division, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Michele Y. F.
Sarko, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division,
UNITED STATES JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.
Thomas A. Elliot, Fabienne Chatain, ELLIOT & MAYOCK, Washington,
D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

* Hu filed a petition for habeas corpus in which he named
as Respondents the United States Immigration and Naturalization
Service (“INS”), United States Attorney General John Ashcroft, INS
Commissioner James W. Ziglar, District Director Louis D. Crocetti,
Jr., of the Baltimore District of the INS, and Warden Douglas C.
Devenyns of the Wicomico County Detention Center. We refer to
Respondents as “the Government.”
2
PER CURIAM:
This case concerns the Government’s * continuing authority
to detain Min Hu without a bond hearing pursuant to
8 U.S.C.A. § 1226 (West 1999), which governs the detention of an
alien “pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed
from the United States.” The Government appeals a district court
order holding that such detention was unconstitutional and
directing the Government to provide Hu with a bond hearing before
an immigration judge. Because the parties agree, in light of
recent events, that this case and appeal are moot, we dismiss the
appeal, vacate the district court order, and remand to the district
court with instructions to dismiss the case. See Arizonans for
Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 80 (1997). In so doing,
we take no position on the merits of the Government’s appeal.
DISMISSED, VACATED, AND REMANDED

-- 2 of 2 --