The next day, her third day at Miramar, she drops off ODLS. Transfer in progress.
At 8:37am, a flight leaves Opa-locka, FL for Alexandria, LA.
Sure enough, ODLS updates to Richwood Correctional, in Monroe, LA. The Western District of Louisiana, in the 5th Circuit. The fear from the start.
![To the contrary, Defendants have threatened enforcement only when the circumstances surrounding a city's refusal to execute a 287(g) agreement revealed that the municipality inin fact banned or discouraged those agreements or is failing to use best efforts to support the enforcement of federal immigration law. In Fort Myers, for example, the City refused to execute a 287(g) agreement that its local police department strenuously recommended. Id.1 70-72. "By failing to approve the [police department's] 287(g) agreement' despite the department's strong insistence, Fort Myers had evinced an "implicit[] ... sanctuary policy" barring 287(g) agreements. Id. | 75. But that is worlds different from the barebones hypothetical South Miami has proposed, most obviously](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:guwmxzpvhikcy3oiw22wyydn/bafkreibr44escguym7k56q6rk4au2pnhfly56stcekfcwvpxp3q7mxiibi)
![https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73538413/9/rosales-fulez-v-miami-field-office-director-enforcement-and-removal/
Petitioner takes no issue with the Court’s legal analysis in ordering the Petition transferred to the Western District of Louisiana. Rather, Petitioner insists that the Court’s conclusion that she was no longer in this District at the time the Petition was filed was an “error of apprehension.” (DE [7] p. 2). In support, Petitioner has put forth additional evidence which she suggests confirms her location in this District at the relevant time. Putting aside that the Court’s “apprehension” of the facts was of Petitioner’s own making, the additional evidence fails to set forth facts of a “strongly convincing nature” that Petitioner was not already located in the Western District of Louisiana at the time the Petition was filed.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:guwmxzpvhikcy3oiw22wyydn/bafkreihixyrblbwryx4ufezuzfym2nhpshm5kaecnumz7xkr4qxwmvjxei)
![The recruits are being offered signing bonuses, [highlighted in blue]the opportunity to work from home[/highlighting], and even the flexibility to keep their day jobs and moonlight as judges after hours. New hires can earn up to $207,500 a year and 25 percent signing bonuses in some Democrat led-states such as California.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:guwmxzpvhikcy3oiw22wyydn/bafkreid6axcow72sywlspxjvvkdrvlcmiom5tn6ca4pnp2t2djfw2vtndy)
![The majority expands the scope of our review of the district court’s injunction under the guise of evaluating the district court’s legal conclusions, but in doing so, does not grapple with the ongo- ing trend in this circuit to “ignor[e] and/or revis[e] the district court’s factual findings and fail[ ] to apply the clear error stand- ard . . . .” Fla. Decides Healthcare, Inc. v. Fla. Sec’y of State, No. 25- 12370, 2025 WL 3738554, at *9 (11th Cir. Sept. 9, 2025) (Abudu, J., dissenting) (quoting Otto v. City of Boca Raton, 41 F.4th 1271, 1285 (11th Cir. 2022) (Jordan, J., dissenting)). We are not supposed to redetermine the facts for ourselves. Today, by vacating the district court’s preliminary injunction, the majority ignores the district court’s careful and extensive fact finding, attributing fault and error where there was none.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:guwmxzpvhikcy3oiw22wyydn/bafkreif5s5mteewzsqgghbfltu7dbpyspeixdjmmual25aeif5526z5v3u)