Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321206732/Rafael-Medina-v-United-States-of-America-No-00-2156-259-F-3d-220-4th-Cir-2001
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 16:50:31+00:00

Document:
259 F.3d 220 (4th Cir.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. No.
Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge.
States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
wrote the opinion, in which Judge Wilkins and Judge Smalkin joined.
and remand with instructions that Medina's complaint be dismissed.
surrendered to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court for the City of Alexandria.
which he was fined $2,000 and ordered to pay the state's costs of prosecution.
in any angry, rude or vengeful manner." J.A. 187.
misdemeanor conviction is unlikely to affect Medina's immigration status[.]"
Assistant Director to issue arrest warrants).
granted Medina's motion and terminated the proceedings.
false arrest; (3) malicious prosecution; and (4) infliction of emotional distress.
was deportable on the basis of being convicted of a crime of moral turpitude.
Adaway lacked probable cause . . . each count fails as a matter of law." J.A.
243-44. Medina now appeals, and we possess jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
366 U.S. 696, 706 n.15 (1961).
no way prevents this Court from considering the issue now."); United States v.
jurisdictional bar . . . which the court may raise sua sponte[.]"); cf. Suarez Corp.
Eleventh Amendment immunity at any time, even sua sponte.").
whether or not the discretion involved be abused.
the former mystery; the latter question, on the other hand, remains unsettled.
tort proviso of S 2680(h).
under S 2680(h) did not have to clear the discretionary function "hurdle."
agency conduct that might violate state law.
torts under state law. See Jackson, 77 F. Supp. 2d at 714 (citing Garcia v.
[that] specifically prescribes a course of action." Berkovitz, 486 U.S. at 536.
Mr. Rosenthal: There was no requirement even for an arrest in this case. . . .
decisions . . . .
with determining whether Medina's crime was one involving moral turpitude.
either one's fellow man or society in general." Matter of Danesh, 19 I. & N.
interpretation to "future administrative and judicial interpretation." Cabral v.
United States, 15 F.3d 193, 195 (1st Cir. 1994).
deportation proceedings involves the exercise of prosecutorial discretion[.]").
conduct must implicate considerations of public policy. United States v.
428, 429 (4th Cir. 1996) (quoting Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 324)).
victims that have a "special relationship" with the assaulter may be a CIMT.
a CIMT); Toutounjian v. INS, 959 F. Supp. 598, 603 (W.D.N.Y. 1997) ("
found to involve a crime of moral turpitude.").
regarded as a classic discretionary function.").
court with instructions that the complaint be dismissed.
agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by the agency in writing[.]"
any defenses its agents could raise in their individual capacities. See Norton v.
United States , 581 F.2d 390, 395 (4th Cir. 1978).
decision to detain him arose under S 1226(a).
existed to assert that Medina had committed a CIMT.
harshly and persuasively criticized at times (including recently) in the courts.
circumstance. Unfortunately for this petitioner, the question is not an open one.

References: v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.