United States v. Daniel Lewis Lee, 960 F.3d 1023

Daniel Lee was convicted of murder in aid of racketeering and sentenced to death; his execution was scheduled for December 9, 2019.
On December 6, 2019, the district court entered a stay: the death sentence "must not be carried out until further order of this Court, the Eighth Circuit, or the Supreme Court."
The stay was motivated in part by a then-pending Supreme Court case, Banister v. Davis, concerning whether certain postjudgment Rule 59(e) motions are second-or-successive habeas petitions requiring appellate authorization.
The district court relied on Chambers v. Bowersox, which had stayed an execution pending a Supreme Court decision about appellate-review procedures, reasoning there was an "appreciable chance" Lee could obtain further review if Banister were resolved favorably.
The government appealed the district court’s stay; Lee argued the appeal was moot because the original execution date had passed and no new date had been set.
The Eighth Circuit held the appeal was not moot (the district court’s stay barred any future execution without further court order) but vacated the stay because the district court applied an incorrect legal standard (Chambers) in granting it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of the government’s appeal	Lee: appeal is moot because the execution date passed and no new date set	Gov: district court’s injunction bars any future execution date, so controversy remains	Not moot — stay remains a live obstacle to execution
Proper standard to grant a stay pending Supreme Court decision (Chambers reliance)	Lee: Chambers permits a stay where there is an "appreciable chance" the prisoner would receive additional review if Banister is decided for him	Gov: Chambers is inconsistent with later Supreme Court precedents requiring a significant possibility of success on the merits to obtain a stay	District court misapplied Chambers; stay vacated because an appreciable chance was insufficient under controlling standards
Applicability/scope of Chambers exception	Lee: Chambers’ rationale extends to cases like his where Banister might reopen judicial review of his Rule 59(e) motion	Gov: Chambers was limited to its unique procedural posture (COA requirement) and does not excuse ordinary stay requirements here	Chambers, if it survives, is limited to its procedural context and does not cover Lee, who already received plenary appellate review

Chambers v. Bowersox, 197 F.3d 308 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (stay of execution pending Supreme Court resolution regarding appellate-review procedures)
Dunn v. McNabb, 138 S. Ct. 369 (2017) (stays require showing significant possibility of success)
Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006) (stay standards require substantial likelihood of success on the merits)
Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637 (2004) (stay principles for execution challenges; requires meaningful showing of likely success)
United States v. Lee, 274 F.3d 485 (8th Cir. 2001) (criminal conviction and sentencing decision)
United States v. Lee, 715 F.3d 215 (8th Cir. 2013) (appellate disposition reflecting that Lee received full appellate review)