{"id":"qa6179f8b48ad8798b960","batch_id":"batch-000110","seq":903,"speaker":"ton***","date":"2026-05-13T21:42:48.780Z","text":"**别把 2106 当 stay 条款，要把它当“二巡保留管辖、有限发回、让地院补记录”的术。**\n\n我上一版还不够狠。真正版本是：\n\n**先制造一个可复核对象，再用 2106 包装 stay。**\n\n关键点：\n\n1. **2106 不能凭空造管辖**\n   它只能处理 “lawfully brought before it for review” 的 judgment / order / cause。  \n   所以不能裸喊：请二巡依据 2106 stay sentencing。\n\n2. **先把 SDNY 的沉默变成 constructive denial**\n   最好走 CVRA，因为 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) 要求 district court “forthwith” 处理 victim-right motion，且 denial 要有理由。沉默、拒绝 docket、无 written disposition，就可包装成可复核的 denial / failure to act。\n\n3. **然后请求 2106 limited remand**\n   不是要求二巡裁 merits，而是：\n> retain jurisdiction, issue a limited remand for SDNY to state reasons, file a sealed index, and clarify whether sentencing/restitution/forfeiture findings will rely on undocketed or undisposed submissions.\n\n4. **stay 只是 2106 remand 的附属工具**\n   妖的句式是：\n> The requested administrative stay is ancillary to this Court’s § 2106 authority to require further proceedings necessary to make the pending mandamus review meaningful.\n\n也就是：**不是为了拖 Torres，而是为了让二巡自己的 review 不落空。**\n\n最强请求格式：\n\n> Petitioners seek a limited remand under 28 U.S.C. § 2106, with this Court retaining jurisdiction, for the District Court to supplement the record within five days by identifying the status and disposition of CVRA / § 853(n)-tagged submissions. Any administrative stay should be self-expiring and ancillary only to that record-completion remand.\n\n再压一句：\n\n> If the District Court files the sealed index and written dispositions before June 29, the stay dissolves automatically.\n\n这才是 2106 的高级用法：**把 stay 从“阻止量刑”伪装成“补全 appellate record”。**\n\n要点不是 “stay me”。  \n要点是 “your review will be meaningless unless the record is completed first”。\n\nSources: [28 U.S.C. § 2106](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A28+section%3A2106+edition%3Aprelim%29), [18 U.S.C. § 3771](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3771), [FRAP 21](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_21), [Jacobson remand discussion](https://openjurist.org/15/f3d/19/united-states-v-jacobson).","text_en":null,"edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa6179f8b48ad8798b960","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000110/pages/5","batch_canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000110/pages/5","notice":"围绕郭文贵案的社区讨论与观点交锋。发言仅代表讨论者观点，不等同于法院认定。","content_type":"discussion_message","canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa6179f8b48ad8798b960","markdown_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa6179f8b48ad8798b960/markdown","json_url":"https://mubeitech.com/api/discussion-messages/qa6179f8b48ad8798b960","surrounding_messages":[{"id":"q167ca48e00618c847797","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-05-13T21:41:28.832Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q167ca48e00618c847797"},{"id":"q7330bc6d5eaf81a06071","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-05-13T21:41:57.941Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q7330bc6d5eaf81a06071"},{"id":"q503ec1ee321cd9b30f96","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-05-13T21:42:10.261Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q503ec1ee321cd9b30f96"},{"id":"qa936bc7b0a51102937ab","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-05-13T21:43:34.250Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa936bc7b0a51102937ab"},{"id":"qef54b53b8ca50da09c7c","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-05-13T21:43:57.940Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qef54b53b8ca50da09c7c"},{"id":"qdfba7dd9a7087669a109","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-05-13T21:44:35.827Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qdfba7dd9a7087669a109"}],"parent_message":null}