govinfo:USCOURTS-mied-2_92-cr-81127-47

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 
SOUTHERN DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
         
   Plaintiff,    Case Number 92-81127 
        Honorable David M. Lawson 
v.         
 
GREGORY BROWN and JOHN GORDON, 
 
   Defendants. 
___________________________________________/ 
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RETURN OF 
PRISONERS TO CUSTODY OF BUREAU OF PRISONS 
 This matter is before the Court on the government’s motion for return of prisoners to the 
custody of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP).  The motion is the mirror image of earlier motions filed 
by the defendants for bond pending the completion of the proceedings on remand.  The Court 
previously ordered that Defendants Gregory Brown and John Gordon were entitled to remain out 
of custody on bond while the Court resolved certain issues on remand from the Sixth Circuit.  The 
government’s motion asks the Court to return Mr. Brown and Mr. Gordon to BOP custody.  The 
arguments raised in the government’s motion are substantially similar to those that the government 
made in opposition to Mr. Brown’s and Mr. Gordon’s motions for bond, and the Court fully 
addressed all of the questions presented in its ruling on the respective bond motions. 
 Moreover, in the present posture of the case, the Court likely lacks jurisdiction to take 
further action on the government’s challenge to the defendants’ release status , since the 
government has appealed the bond orders.  “The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of 
jurisdictional significance — it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district 
court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.”  Griggs v. Provident 
Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982).  “It is generally understood that a federal district 
Case 2:92-cr-81127-DML   ECF No. 2634, PageID.<pageID>   Filed 12/19/25   Page 1 of 2
-2- 
 
court and a federal court of appeals should not attempt to assert jurisdiction over a case 
simultaneously.”  Ibid.  In certain circumstances the district court may retain limited power to 
address aspects of the case not involved in the appeal, but only when the court’s action “do[es] not 
threaten the orderly disposition of the interlocutory appeal.”  16A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 3949.1 
(4th ed. 2016).  The motion for return of prisoners to custody implicates questions at the heart of 
the pending appeals.   The Court cannot act further on such matters wh ile the appeal s remain 
pending.  The motion therefore will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, but the dismissal will be 
without prejudice to renewal of the issues presented by the government at an appropriate time after 
the appeals have concluded. 
 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the government’s motion for return of prisoners to the 
custody of the BOP (ECF No. 2606) is DISMISSED without prejudice for want of jurisdiction. 
 
  s/David M. Lawson   
  DAVID M. LAWSON 
  United States District Judge 
 
Dated:   December 19, 2025 
 
Case 2:92-cr-81127-DML   ECF No. 2634, PageID.<pageID>   Filed 12/19/25   Page 2 of 2

Passage view · GavelSight