2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
7-17-2007 

# N a r a v . F r ank
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-4779

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Na r a v . F r a nk " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 660. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/660

### PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-4779

___________ JOSEPH NARA
v. FREDERICK FRANK, Appellant

___________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 99-cv-00005) District Judge: The Honorable Terrence F. McVerry

___________ BEFORE: SMITH, WEIS, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
. (Filed July 17, 2007)

__________

### 2 Christopher D. Carusone, Esq. Office of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania Appeals and Legal Services Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Counsel for Appellant Lisa B. Freeland, Esq. Office of the Federal Public Defender 1001 Liberty Avenue 1450 Liberty Center Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Counsel for Appellee

___________ OPINION SUR MOTION TO STAY THE MANDATE AND ORDER OF THE COURT

___________ NYGAARD, Circuit Judge
. 

### Presently before the Court is a motion by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to stay the mandate of our decision in Nara v. Frank , No. 05-4779, pending its filing of a petition for writ of certiorari . Familiarity with this Court’s opinion in the underlying litigation is presumed. Nara v. Frank , – F.3d – 2007 WL 1321929 (3d Cir. May 8, 2007).

### 3 

### . In exceptional cases, a party may obtain a stay of our mandate if it can demonstrate that its petition presents a “substantial question and that there is good cause for a stay.” F ED 

### . R. A PP 

### . P. 41(d)(2)(A) (2007). This standard requires the movant to show: (1) a reasonabl e probability that the Supreme Court will grant certiorari ; (2) a reasonable possibility that at least five Justices would vote to reverse this Court’s judgment; and (3) a likelihood of irreparable in jury absent a stay. In a close case, the movant should make a showing that, on balance, the interests of the parties and the public favor a stay. Rostker v. Goldberg , 448 U.S. 1306, 1308 (1980) (Brennan, J., in chambers); Bricklayers Local 21 v. Banner Restoration, Inc. , 384 F.3d 911, 912 (7th Cir. 2004) (R ipple, J., in chambers); Doe v. Miller , 418 F.3d 950, 951 (8th Cir. 2005); F ED 

### . R. A PP 

### . P. 41(d) advisory committee’s note. The Commonwealth has failed to meet these requirements. First, the Comm onwealth contends that the Supreme Court’s holding in Baldwin v. Reese , 541 U.S. 27, 32 (2004), limited the viability of the analysis we set forth in McCandless v. Vaughn , 172 F.3d 255, 260 (3d Cir. 1999), but it has not demonstrated that th e state courts were required to look beyond Mr. Nara’s petitions or briefs for a federal claim. Second, the Commonwealth argues that we gave insufficient deference to the state courts’ rulings and erre d in concluding that Nara’s competency claim was not procedurally defaulted. The Commonwealth, however, does not develop these arguments in any way, much less cite authority to suggest that at least five Justices would disagree with our analysis.

### 4 

### Finally, the Commonwealth has failed to show that an “irreparable injury” is likely abse nt a stay. Nothing prevents the Commonwealth from preparing to commence trial within 120 days while simultaneously filing a petition for certiorari
. For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that the motion to stay the mandate is DENIED. This is without prejudice to the applicant’s right to file a timely petition for writ of certiorari
.