Source: https://pl.scribd.com/document/401142942/Country-A-Reply-Brief
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:47:00+00:00

Document:
No. 16-cr-46, 2016 WL 5875005 (E.D.
No. 91-cr-00602, 1993 WL 259436 (E.D.
Brief in Opposition to Certiorari, Mont v.
Brief in Opposition to Certiorari, Rehaif v.
the question presented”); Br. in Opp. 12, Rehaif v.
United States, No. 17-9560 (Oct. 24, 2018) (same).
certiorari computer in the Government’s office.
regardless of whether the parties do. See Bender v.
Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986).
Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 437 n.5, 438 (1989); Pet.
“jurisdiction” of American courts—civil and criminal.
provision to civil matters, it would have said so.
a foreign state must lie under § 1330(a) or not at all.
(“§ 1330(a) is the sole source of federal jurisdiction”).
and Country A’s other cases. Opp. 14–16.
when an exception applies. Janvey v. Libyan Inv.
Auth., 840 F.3d 248, 257 (5th Cir. 2016).
Presented 1, 2, and 3).
unless Congress explicitly said that they do not. Opp.
over foreign states wide open.
to foreign states. 488 U.S. at 437.
Nigeria, 277 F.3d 811, 820 (6th Cir. 2002); Dale v.
Colagiovanni, 337 F. Supp. 2d 825, 842–43 (S.D. Miss.
over foreign state-owned corporations. Opp. 17–19.
at *6 (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 7, 2016).
district court’s unpublished opinion in United States v.
Jasin, No. 91-cr-00602, 1993 WL 259436, at *1 (E.D.
of In re Sealed Case, 825 F.2d 494, 495 (D.C. Cir.
In re Investigation of World Arrangements, 13 F.R.D.
Arrangements court said the opposite.
are absolutely immune from criminal proceedings.
they do not apply to criminal cases.” Opp. 17. Not so.
immunity do not apply in criminal proceedings. Pet.
jurisdiction to state-owned corporations. Opp. 17.
Brief (at 10) that the article says nothing of the sort.
44). That is, of course, the opposite of what the D.C.
And it extends beyond the Sixth and D.C. Circuits.
charge a Chinese corporate defendant in United States v. Ho, No.
this litigation proves, federal prosecutors sometimes overreach.
417 (5th Cir. 2006)) arose in the civil context. Opp. 28.
Court should answer the jurisdictional question now.
exception. 28 U.S.C. § 1610(b)(2) (emphasis added).
much in analogous contexts. See, e.g., Nogess v.
Poydras Ctr., L.L.C., 728 F. App’x 303, 305 (5th Cir.
“claim for relief in this suit”); Mulay Plastics, Inc. v.
decide when the FSIA applies.
done that, should reverse the judgment below.

References: v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 § 1330
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 § 1610
 v.

 v.