In United States v. Pavlenko, No. 17-15047 (Apr. 22,
2019) (William Pryor, Newsom, Rosenthal), the Court held that the
defendant lacked Article III standing to appeal the dismissal of an indictment.
The defendant entered a settlement agreement with the government whereby he
would agree to return to Russian and abandon his LPR status in the United
States and waive any right to return for ten years. In exchange, the government agreed to
dismissal all charges against him. After
the defendant boarded a flight to Russia, the government moved to dismiss, and
the court granted the motion and dismissed the indictment in light of the
settlement agreement. On appeal, the
defendant argued that the dismissal order deviated from the settlement
agreement and imposed conditions on him to which he never agreed. The Eleventh Circuit, however, concluded that
the order did no more than dismiss the indictment against him. Contrary to his argument, the court's order
did not subject him to the continuing supervision. Because the district court did no more than
dismiss the indictment, and thus did not injure him, the defendant lacked
standing to appeal the order.
