United States of America v. Brown et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, Case Number 92-81127
Honorable David M. Lawson
v.

GREGORY BROWN and JOHN GORDON,

Defendants.
___________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RETURN OF
PRISONERS TO CUSTODY OF BUREAU OF PRISONS
This matter is before the Court on the government’s motion for return of prisoners to the
custody of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The motion is the mirror image of earlier motions filed
by the defendants for bond pending the completion of the proceedings on remand. The Court
previously ordered that Defendants Gregory Brown and John Gordon were entitled to remain out
of custody on bond while the Court resolved certain issues on remand from the Sixth Circuit. The
government’s motion asks the Court to return Mr. Brown and Mr. Gordon to BOP custody. The
arguments raised in the government’s motion are substantially similar to those that the government
made in opposition to Mr. Brown’s and Mr. Gordon’s motions for bond, and the Court fully
addressed all of the questions presented in its ruling on the respective bond motions.
Moreover, in the present posture of the case, the Court likely lacks jurisdiction to take
further action on the government’s challenge to the defendants’ release status, since the
government has appealed the bond orders. “The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of
jurisdictional significance — it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district
court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident
Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). “It is generally understood that a federal district
Case 2:92-cr-81127-DML ECF No. 2634, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/19/25 Page 1 of 2

-2-

court and a federal court of appeals should not attempt to assert jurisdiction over a case
simultaneously.” Ibid. In certain circumstances the district court may retain limited power to
address aspects of the case not involved in the appeal, but only when the court’s action “do[es] not
threaten the orderly disposition of the interlocutory appeal.” 16A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 3949.1
(4th ed. 2016). The motion for return of prisoners to custody implicates questions at the heart of
the pending appeals. The Court cannot act further on such matters while the appeals remain
pending. The motion therefore will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, but the dismissal will be
without prejudice to renewal of the issues presented by the government at an appropriate time after
the appeals have concluded.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the government’s motion for return of prisoners to the
custody of the BOP (ECF No. 2606) is DISMISSED without prejudice for want of jurisdiction.

s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge

Dated: December 19, 2025

Case 2:92-cr-81127-DML ECF No. 2634, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/19/25 Page 2 of 2