Citing references

See O'Brien v. O’Laughlin, 557 U.S. 1301 , 130 S.Ct. 5 , 174 L.Ed.2d 602 (2009) (Breyer, J., in chambers).

O’Brien v. O’Laughlin, 557 U.S. 1301 , 130 S.Ct. 5 , 174 L.Ed.2d 602 (2009). On August 24, 2009, Justice Breyer issued an order staying the mandate of the First Circuit until further order. O’Brien v.

O’Brien v. O’Laughlin, 557 U.S. 1301, 1302 (2009); see Fed. R. App. P. 23(c). “[T]his presumption can be overcome if the traditional factors regulating the issuance of a stay weigh in favor of granting a stay.” O’Brien, 557 U.S. at 1302 .

In light of Medellin I, it is clear that there is no “fair prospect that a majority of [ 564 U.S. 942 ] the Court will conclude that the decision below was erroneous,” O’Brien v. O’Laughlin, 557 U.S. 1301, 1302 , 130 S. Ct. 5 , 174 L.

.; see also O’Brien v. O’Laughlin, 557 U.S. 1301 , 130 S.Ct. 5 , 174 L.Ed.2d 602 (2009).

O’Brien v. O’Laughlin, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 5, 6 , 174 L.Ed.2d 602 (2009); Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 777 , 107 S.Ct. 2113 , 95 L.Ed.2d 724 (1987).

O'Brien v. O'Laughlin , 557 U.S. 1301 , 130 S.Ct. 5 , 174 L.Ed.2d 602 (2009) (citing Hilton v. Braunskill , 481 U.S. 770 , 774, 107 S.Ct. 2113 , 95 L.Ed.2d 724 (1987) ); Fed. Rule App. Proc. 23(c).

O’Brien, — U.S. -,-, 130 S.Ct. 5, 6 , 174 L.Ed.2d 602 , 2009 WL 2831420 at *1 (Citations omitted). These factors do not militate in favor of a stay in this case.

Padilla, 130 S. Ct. 5 Case: 11-40256 Document: 00511899670 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/26/2012 No. 11-40256 at 1482.

O’Brien v. O’Laughlin, 130 S. Ct. 5, 6 (2009); Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 777 (1987). But the state can overcome this presumption “if the traditional factors regulating the issuance of a stay weigh in favor of granting a stay.”

See generally O’Brien v. O’Laughlin, 557 U. S. 1301, 1302 ( 130 SCt 5 , 174 LE2d 602) (2009) (Breyer, J., in chambers) (noting the four “traditional factors regulating the issuance of a stay”); SRB Investment Svcs. v.

See 18 O’Brien v. O’Laughlin, 557 U.S. 1301, 1302 (2009). Plaintiffs have not shown it is 19 reasonably likely that any of their three arguments will succeed. 20 a.

Nor [has the Court] held that courts may use policy considerations as a substitute for party agreement.” 4 Goldman, Sachs & Co., 747 F.3d at 742 (emphasis in original) (quoting Granite Rock, 130 S.

See Leiva-Perez, 640 F.3d at 967 (discussing O’Brien v. 17 O’Laughlin, 557 U.S. 1301 (2009), which noted that, for purposes of stay pending appeal, 18 the fact a certiorari petition was granted raises a “fair prospect” of success on the merits of 19

Schwartz, 590 F.3d 531, 532 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing O'Brien v. O'Laughlin, 557 U.S. 1301, 1302 (2009), and Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 777 (1987)).

O’Brien v. O’Laughlin, 557 U.S. 1301, 1302 (2009) (Breyer, J., in Chambers); see Fed. R. App. P. 23(c); Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 774 (1987).

(See ECF No. 27 at 1.) 590 F.3d 531, 532 (7th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (quoting O’Brien v. O’Laughlin, 557 U.S. 1301, 1302 (2009) (Breyer, J., in chambers)).

O’Brien v. O’Laughlin, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 5, 6 , 174 L.Ed.2d 602 (2009) (Breyer, in chambers) (citing Hilton, 481 U.S. at 776 , 107 S.Ct. 2113 ) (emphases added).

AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 130 S. Ct. 5 1758, 1773 (2010) (noting the “basic precept that arbitration is a matter of consent, not 6 coercion”) (quotations omitted). 7 I also note that Rule 41 is consistent with the purpose of § 6 of the FAA.

(quoting 13 O’Brien v. O’Laughlin, 557 U.S. 1301, 1302 (2009)). Certainly, the applicant “need not 14 demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he will win.”

(quoting O’Brien v. O’Laughlin, 557 U.S. 1301, 1302 (2009)). 26 Certainly, the applicant “need not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he will 27 28 6 1 win.”

O’Brien v. O’Laughlin, 557 U.S. 1301, 1301 (2009) (Breyer, J., in chambers). If Respondent decides to appeal, he may file an appropriate motion attempting to rebut the presumption and requesting Olson remain in custody pending the appeal.

O’Brien v. O’Laughlin, 557 U.S. 1301, 1302 (2009).

O’Brien v. O’Laughlin, 557 U.S. 1301 (2009) (citing Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 774 (1987)), Fed. Rule App. Proc. 23(c). Here, Rule 23(c) is inapplicable because the Court has denied relief.