IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
|
|
- Basil Patterson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case: Document: Filed: 02/10/2011 Page: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT METROPCS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; METROPCS 700 MHZ, LLC; METROPCS AWS, LLC; METROPCS CALIFORNIA, LLC; METROPCS FLORIDA, LLC; METROPCS GEORGIA, LLC; METROPCS MASSACHUSETTS, LLC; METROPCS MICHIGAN, INC.; METROPCS NETWORKS CALIFORNIA, LLC; METROPCS NETWORKS FLORIDA, LLC; METROPCS TEXAS, LLC; and METROPCS WIRELESS, INC. Appellants, v. Case No FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee. OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS Appellants MetroPCS Communications, Inc. and its FCC-licensed subsidiaries (collectively, MetroPCS hereby oppose the Motion to Dismiss and to Defer Filing of the Record (the Motion filed by the Federal Communications Commission (the Commission or FCC in this proceeding on January 28, 2011.
2 Case: Document: Filed: 02/10/2011 Page: 2 1. In the order on appeal, Preserving the Open Internet; Broadband Industry Practices, Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd (2010 (the Order, the Commission imposed Internet open-access requirements on mobile broadband providers (such as MetroPCS based in part on its authority to modify and condition the licenses of wireless carriers. 47 U.S.C. 316(a(1. The Commission declared that it was acting to change the license... terms of mobile broadband providers and to impose new requirements on existing licenses beyond those that were in place at the time of grant, Order 133 & 135 n.439; see also id. 134 ( The open Internet conditions we adopt today likewise are necessary to advance the public interest in innovation and investment.. The Commission cited section 316(a, among other licensing provisions of Title III of the Communications Act (the Act, see id. 133 nn. 427 & 430. Indeed, ordering clause 170 of the Order specifically identifies section 316 of the Act which by its terms only pertains to a Modification by [the] Commission of Construction Permits or Licenses, 47 U.S.C. 316 as a basis for the rules. On the merits, MetroPCS will contest whether section 316, as well as the other licensing provisions under Title III cited in the Order, provide any authority to impose the Internet access rules at issue. It also will contest the legality of the modified license conditions the Commission imposed under 2
3 Case: Document: Filed: 02/10/2011 Page: 3 Title III even if the agency could invoke these provisions. But it is the Commission s action in the Order that is relevant in determining appellate jurisdiction, and there is no doubt that the Commission has unequivocally asserted its section 316 authority in declaring the licenses of existing wireless broadband carriers to have been modified by the Order. Accordingly, the Order is appealable under section 402(b(5 of the Act, which grants this Court exclusive jurisdiction over an appeal of a Commission order by the holder of any station license which has been modified by the Commission. 47 U.S.C. 402(b(5; N. Am. Catholic Educ. Programming Found., Inc. v. FCC, 437 F.3d 1206, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 2006; Tribune Co. v. FCC, 133 F.3d 61, 66 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 1998; see also Functional Music, Inc. v. FCC, 274 F.2d 543, (D.C. Cir (holding that modification of licenses effected in rulemakings are appealable under Section 402(b(5. 2. The FCC does not contest the Court s jurisdiction under section 402(b(5; instead, it moves to dismiss the MetroPCS appeal solely on the ground that it is premature. The Order was released on December 23, 2010, but has not yet been published in the Federal Register. The FCC contends that no appeal is proper until the latter event of publication occurs. 3
4 Case: Document: Filed: 02/10/2011 Page: 4 An appeal under Section 402(b(5 shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court within thirty days from the date upon which public notice is given of the date of the decision or order complained of. 47 U.S.C. 402(c. The FCC contends that the date of public notice of the Order is governed by Rule 1.4(b(1. Rule 1.4(b(1 provides that for all documents in notice and comment and non-notice and comment rulemaking proceedings required by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, 553, to be published in the Federal Register, the date of public notice is the date of publication in the Federal Register. 47 C.F.R. 1.4(b(1. However, in a Note to Rule 1.4(b(1, the Commission has created an express exception providing that [l]icensing and other adjudicatory decisions with respect to specific parties that may be associated with or contained in rulemaking documents are governed by the provisions of 1.4(b(2. Id., note to paragraph (b(1. Subsection 1.4(b(2 of the Commission s Rules in turn provides that the public notice date [f]or nonrulemaking documents released by the Commission or staff is the release date. Id. 1.4(b(2. Because the Commission issued a licensing decision[] within the meaning of the Note to Rule 1.4(b(1, MetroPCS filed its appeal within 30 days of the December 23, 2010 release date. 4
5 Case: Document: Filed: 02/10/2011 Page: 5 The Commission claims that the Note exempting licensing decisions from Rule 1.4(b(1 is not applicable because the rules adopted in the Order apply to all providers of broadband Internet access service, and were not issued with respect to specific parties, 47 C.F.R. 1.4(b(1, note. Motion 6. This argument does not withstand scrutiny. MetroPCS holds some wireless licenses issued by the FCC under Part 24 of the Commission rules governing Personal Communications Services ( PCS and some issued under Part 27 of the Commission rules governing Miscellaneous Wireless Services, which include Advanced Wireless Services ( AWS, and 700 MHz services. While MetroPCS does currently provide mobile broadband Internet access service over its licenses, there are PCS, AWS and 700 MHz licensees who have elected not to do so, and thus would not be subject to the new Net Neutrality or Open Internet rules imposed by the Order. 1 Put another way, the new rules purport to apply to only an identifiable subset of wireless licenses: those whose holders have opted to provide broadband Internet Access services or who elect to provide such services in the future. 2 1 For example, some carriers offer only wireless voice services that do not meet the Commission s definition of wireless broadband Internet access services. 2 The Commission seeks comfort in the fact that there are numerous Internet service providers, or ISPs, throughout the country and that, as a result, the Order cannot be viewed as addressing a small identifiable set of ISPs. Motion 6. But there is nothing in the Note to Rule 1.4(b(1 that requires that the number of specific parties be small. 5
6 Case: Document: Filed: 02/10/2011 Page: 6 Furthermore, there are many types of Title III licensees other than wireless licensees, such as television and radio broadcasters, whose licenses will also be unmodified. Thus, the FCC licensees affected by the modification in the Order are, contrary to the Commission s assertion, a specific subset of parties as among Title III license holders. The Commission maintains that the reference in the Note to licensing or other adjudicatory decisions means that only adjudicated licensing modifications (and not licensing modifications by rulemaking are subject to the exception. Motion 5-6. The most natural reading of the Note is that all licensing decisions and all other adjudicatory decisions (even if not related to licensing appearing in a rulemaking document are exempt from Rule 1.4(b(1. The phrase other adjudicatory decisions cannot be read to modify the word licensing ; the proper reading is licensing decisions and other adjudicatory decisions, not licensing adjudicatory decisions. The phrase other adjudicatory decisions reflects the fact that most licensing decisions are adjudications, but it cannot restrict the plain meaning of the unqualified term licensing. Thus, rulemakings are appealable upon Federal Register publication, except that licensing decisions and adjudications embodied in a rulemaking order are appealable upon the 6
7 Case: Document: Filed: 02/10/2011 Page: 7 order s release. Because the Order is a licensing decision, MetroPCS properly appealed it within 30 days of its release date. 3. At best, the Commission may claim that Rule 1.4(b(1 and the accompanying note are ambiguous. The Commission argues that [e]ven if the Court were to find that the Note to Rule 1.4(b(1 creates ambiguity, the interpretation set forth in the Motion is at the very least reasonable and therefore warrants deference. Motion n.2. But ambiguity is fatal to the Commission s motion. A motion to dismiss disputing the date of public notice should be denied when the FCC s reasonable interpretation is not obvious... upon careful reading of the Commission s regulations. Adams Telcom, Inc. v. FCC, 997 F.2d 955, (D.C. Cir Rule 1.4(b does not explicitly draw distinctions between licensing rulemakings and licensing adjudications, and certainly the Commission s current position is not obvious on the face of Rule 1.4(b. The Commission should not be allowed to stay silent on this issue and then seek advantage from the lack of clarity, either by moving to dismiss as premature appeals filed within the initial 30 day window or by moving to dismiss as untimely appeals filed later. As this court has wisely observed in the past, [t]he agency s interpretation is entitled to deference, but if it wishes to use that interpretation to cut off a party s rights, it must give full notice of that 7
8 Case: Document: Filed: 02/10/2011 Page: 8 interpretation. Adams Telcom, Inc., 997 F.2d at 957 (quoting Satellite Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 824 F.2d 1, 4 (D.C. Cir That especially should be the case when the Motion precedes the publishing of the notice, an event that is entirely within the Commission s control. 4. The Commission s Motion should thus be denied on the sole ground it raises, but this Court need not waste scarce judicial resources at this time deciding this motion. Notably, both MetroPCS and Verizon have made clear their respective intentions to promptly file further protective appeals as soon as the subject Order is published in the Federal Register. Notice of Appeal 4, n.1; Notice of Appeal at n.2, Verizon v. FCC, No (D.C. Cir. Jan. 20, As a practical matter, those post-publication filings will render unnecessary any decision of the prematurity issue raised by the Commission on this motion. The Commission itself maintains that the second appeal filed after Federal Register publication will be timely. Motion 4. When two notices of appeal are filed for protective purposes, the Court has the ability to continue with the case, disposing of the appeal deemed superfluous after decision. See, e.g., Tidler v. Eli Lilly & Co., 824 F.2d 84, 87 n.3 (D.C. Cir
9 Case: Document: Filed: 02/10/2011 Page: 9 This makes special sense if, as has been widely anticipated in the industry, the Commission initiates Federal Register publication expeditiously. Indeed, the Commission on February 9, 2011 published the information collection requirements and complaint proceeding portion of the Order in the Federal Register. The Commission should clarify for the Court how soon publication of the Order itself may follow. This Court should be wary, however, if the Commission is attempting to shield the Order from immediate judicial review and thus impair MetroPCS (and Verizon s statutory right to such review under Section 402(b(5 by delaying the Federal Register publication. The subject Order was released on December 23, 2010, meaning that seven weeks have passed without publication. This presents grave problems for MetroPCS, in particular, which is suffering immediate harm as a result of the Commission s action. The ink was barely dry on the Order when proponents of the Commission s net neutrality rules began launching attacks at the FCC against carriers, including MetroPCS, based upon it. See, e.g., Consumers Union, et al., Notice of Written Ex Parte Presentation, GN Docket No ; WC Docket No (Jan. 21, 2011; Free Press, et al., Notice of Ex Parte Presentation, GN Docket No ; WC Docket No (Jan. 10, Under these circumstances, it is important for the 9
10 Case: Document: Filed: 02/10/2011 Page: 10 appeal to proceed to a decision on the merits sooner rather than later, preferably on an expedited basis. 5. The Commission also asks that this Court delay the current deadline for the filing of the record in this case based on the suggestion that venue may not be in this Court. Motion 6. As earlier noted, the Commission s Motion does not affirmatively dispute that jurisdiction is proper under section 402(b(5, although it has cryptically hinted elsewhere that the Commission does not necessarily agree that the Open Internet Order is subject to challenge under section 402(b. Reply of the FCC in Support of its Motion To Dismiss and Motion to Defer Filing of the Record at 7, n.2, Verizon v. FCC, No (D.C. Cir. Feb. 2, 2011 ( FCC Verizon Reply. This hide-the-ball approach in the Commission s own motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, no less is untenable. If the Commission has any disagreement with the core claim of MetroPCS that section 402(b(5 is the proper basis for this appeal, it should have said so in the Motion and briefed the issue. It is incumbent upon a movant to brief all the jurisdictional defenses it may have in a single motion. The Commission has also suggested that the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court over section 402(b(5 should be decided by the court of appeals 10
11 Case: Document: Filed: 02/10/2011 Page: 11 to which the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation directs petitions for review of the Order to be transferred (which may or may not be this Court. See FCC Verizon Reply 5-7 & n.2 ( The issue [of whether jurisdiction is proper under section 402(b] is a matter that need be addressed, if at all, by the transferee court selected by a judicial lottery, and there is no need to brief the matter now.. That is untrue. As an initial matter, it is speculation whether other parties will file petitions for review in another court of appeals within 10 days of the publication of the Order in the Federal Register, thus triggering the lottery provisions of 28 U.S.C. 2112(a(1-(3. Even if they do, this Court may very well end up the transferee court. Furthermore, there are substantial questions as to whether an appeal that is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court is even subject to transfer under the lottery provisions of section 2112, which apply to petitions for review that are filed in at least two courts of appeals. 28 U.S.C. 2112(a(1. This reading, of course, suggests that two different courts of appeal would have jurisdiction, which is not the case for license modifications, which can only be brought in this Court. The Commission has relied upon Valley Vision, Inc. v. FCC, 383 F.2d 218 (D.C. Cir (per curiam ( Valley Vision I, to argue that even section 402(b(5 appeals 11
12 Case: Document: Filed: 02/10/2011 Page: 12 are subject to transfer, but that decision does not aid the Commission. First, Valley Vision I applied to the prior version of section 2112, which authorized venue in the court of appeals in which a petition for review of an order was first filed, and is not precedent with regard to the lottery provisions of the amended section See id. at 219 (noting that Court would yield sua sponte to the Congressional intent that an administrative action be reviewed only by the Court of Appeals in which proceedings were first instituted. Second, Valley Vision I arose in a very different context. In that case, the same party filed a petition for review under section 402(a in the Ninth Circuit and then later an appeal under section 402(b in this Court. The Ninth Circuit had already exercised jurisdiction, issuing an injunction staying the agency order s effective date. This Court declared its belief that, because the order on review was a cease-and-desist order, the District of Columbia Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction to review the challenged order. Id. Nonetheless, in deference to 2112(a and the need for avoiding unseemly conflict, this Court transferred the section 402(b appeal to the Ninth Circuit without receding from our view that the case properly belongs in the District of Columbia Circuit. Id. The Ninth Circuit, informed of this Court s view, transferred the appeals back to this Court because of its exclusive jurisdiction. Valley Vision, Inc. v. FCC, 399 F.2d 12
13 Case: Document: Filed: 02/10/2011 Page: (9th Cir ( Valley Vision II. This case involves a different statutory scheme and no extraordinary circumstance of avoiding conflict with a sister court of appeals that has already exercised jurisdiction. 3 In short, there is no need for this Court to speculate as to the prospect of petitions for review filed by other parties in other courts or the propriety of transfer of 402(b(5 appeals under 28 U.S.C The critical point regarding Valley Vision I for purposes of this motion is that, regardless of whether transfer is formally necessary under section 2112, this Court is the expositor of its own exclusive jurisdiction. The existence of section 402(b(5 jurisdiction will be central to proceedings that follow Federal Register publication. But because the FCC has not argued the jurisdictional question of appealability of the Order under section 402(b(5 in this 3 In an unpublished order, this Court did invoke Valley Vision to transfer section 402(b(5 appeals to the section 2112 transferee court in a case involving the current statute. See FCC Verizon Reply (citing Newspaper Association of America v. FCC, No (D.C. Cir. May 29, But Newspaper Association is of limited precedential value (see D.C. Cir. R. 36(e(2, contains little analysis to guide this Court, and in any event involves different circumstances. In Newspaper Association, the order was published in the Federal Register on February 21, 2008, 73 Fed. Reg. 9481, and a number of parties thereafter filed petitions for review under section 402(a, and some filed both petitions under section 402(a and appeals under section 402(b. See, e.g., Newspaper Association of America v. FCC, Nos & (D.C. Cir. Feb. 29, 2008; Morris Communications Company, LLC, Nos & (D.C. Cir. Mar. 5, Nos & (D.C. Cir. Feb. 29, Newspaper Association, even if viable precedent, provides no guidance in the circumstance here, where a section 402(b(5 appeal is pending and section 402(a petitions for review cannot even be filed because Federal Register publication is yet to occur.. 13
14 Case: Document: Filed: 02/10/2011 Page: 14 motion, this Court should exercise its discretion to defer resolution of the instant issue of prematurity under Rule 1.4 until a later time, rather than address this evanescent and practically meaningless question now. CONCLUSION MetroPCS s Notice of Appeal was timely filed under Rule 1.4, and any ambiguity in the provisions of that rule is fatal to the Commission s Motion to Dismiss. In any event, the Court need not address the prematurity issue at this time because it will soon be rendered irrelevant by publication of the Order in the Federal Register, and thus this Court should await the filing of MetroPCS s protective second appeal so as to avoid piecemeal disposition of jurisdictional questions. 14
15 Case: Document: Filed: 02/10/2011 Page: 15 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Stephen B. Kinnaird Carl W. Northrop Stephen B. Kinnaird Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP th Street, NW Washington, D.C ( (phone ( (fax Attorney for MetroPCS Communications, Inc. MetroPCS 700 MHz, LLC MetroPCS AWS, LLC MetroPCS California, LLC MetroPCS Florida, LLC MetroPCS Georgia, LLC MetroPCS Massachusetts, LLC MetroPCS Michigan, Inc. MetroPCS Networks California, LLC MetroPCS Networks Florida, LLC MetroPCS Texas, LLC MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. Dated February 10, 2011 LEGAL_US_E #
16 Case: Document: Filed: 02/10/2011 Page: 16 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT METROPCS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; METROPCS 700 MHZ, LLC; METROPCS AWS, LLC; METROPCS CALIFORNIA, LLC; METROPCS FLORIDA, LLC; METROPCS GEORGIA, LLC; METROPCS MASSACHUSETTS, LLC; METROPCS MICHIGAN, INC.; METROPCS NETWORKS CALIFORNIA, LLC; METROPCS NETWORKS FLORIDA, LLC; METROPCS TEXAS, LLC; and METROPCS WIRELESS, INC. Appellants, v. Case No FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen B. Kinnaird, hereby certify that on February 10, 2011, I caused to be electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by using the CM/ECF system. Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the CM/ECF system. I certify further that I have directed that copies of the foregoing document be sent by electronic mail to:
17 Case: Document: Filed: 02/10/2011 Page: 17 Richard K. Welch Joel Marcus Federal Communications Commission Office of the General Counsel th Street, S.W. Washington, DC Counsel for Federal Communications Commission Respectfully submitted, Dated February 10, 2011 /s/ Stephen B. Kinnaird Stephen B. Kinnaird Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP th Street NW Washington, D.C ( (phone ( (fax ( Attorney for MetroPCS Communications, Inc. MetroPCS 700 MHz, LLC MetroPCS AWS, LLC MetroPCS California, LLC MetroPCS Florida, LLC MetroPCS Georgia, LLC MetroPCS Massachusetts, LLC MetroPCS Michigan, Inc. MetroPCS Networks California, LLC MetroPCS Networks Florida, LLC MetroPCS Texas, LLC MetroPCS Wireless, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #15-1063 Document #1554128 Filed: 05/26/2015 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT FULL SERVICE NETWORK, TRUCONNECT MOBILE, SAGE TELECOMMUNICATIONS,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110091256 Date Filed: 11/29/2018 Page: 1 SPRINT CORPORATION, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT v. Petitioner, Case No. 18-9563 (MCP No. 155) FEDERAL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOTION OF AMERICAN CABLE ASSOCIATION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE
Case: 18-70506, 03/16/2018, ID: 10802297, DktEntry: 33, Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT County of Santa Clara and Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA; SANTA CLARA COUNTY CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, Petitioners, No. 18-70506 FCC Nos. 17-108 17-166 Federal Communications
More informationBefore the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century Communications
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APP: AJllS--~---- PETITION FOR REVIEW. and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15( a), the Mozilla Corporation
n~'~~:=~ teb 2. t, ZUl8 FOR DISiluc'r OF COLUMBIA ~CU~ FILED FEB 22 zo,a IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APP: AJllS--~----,CEIVED FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIR UIT CLERK MOZILLA CORPORATION, v. Petitioner,
More informationReCEIVED FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCU CLERK
" ~ ~~~ ~Ui1i-~~~~ "!feb SfAfES S9Vfff I" I:O::~::~CIR: ~?~;'~~~j THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEA ReCEIVED FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCU CLERK MOZILLA CORPORATION, v. Petitioner, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
More informationBEFORE THE UNITED STATATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) )
USCA Case #15-1099 Document #1548678 Filed: 04/22/2015 Page 1 of 5 BEFORE THE UNITED STATATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT UNITED STATES TELECOM ASSOCIATION v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
USCA Case #11-1403 Document #1436665 Filed: 05/17/2013 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT METROPCS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al., vs. Appellants, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. v. ) NOTICE OF ERRATA TO PETITION FOR REVIEW
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Greenlining Institute, Public Knowledge, The Utility Reform Network, and National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates, Petitioners v. Federal
More informationCase 1:15-cv IMK Document 8 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 137
Case 1:15-cv-00110-IMK Document 8 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 137 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CLARKSBURG DIVISION MURRAY ENERGY CORPORATION,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
Appellate Case: 13-9590 Document: 01019139697 Date Filed: 10/09/2013 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ACCIPITER COMMUNICATIONS INC., Petitioner v. No. 13-9590 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-3452 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Respondent-Appellant. Appeal From
More informationFederal Communications Commission DA Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ORDER
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review Streamlined Contributor Reporting Requirements
More informationCase 1:18-cv LY Document 32-2 Filed 06/25/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
Case 1:18-cv-00295-LY Document 32-2 Filed 06/25/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION COMMUNITY FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, LTD., and CONSUMER
More informationCOMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION P.O. BOX 3265, HARRISBURG, PA June 23, 2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION P.O. BOX 3265, HARRISBURG, PA 17105-3265 IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO OUR FILE Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Federal Communications Commission
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official capacity as Secretary, United States Department of Health
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #15-1461 Document #1604580 Filed: 03/17/2016 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) GLOBAL TEL*LINK, et al., ) ) Petitioners, ) ) v. ) No. 15-1461
More informationORAL ARGUMENT PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MARCH 31, No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #16-5287 Document #1666445 Filed: 03/16/2017 Page 1 of 9 ORAL ARGUMENT PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MARCH 31, 2017 No. 16-5287 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
More informationORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO
USCA Case #17-1014 Document #1670187 Filed: 04/07/2017 Page 1 of 11 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO. 17-1014 ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO. 15-1363 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER AND HOLD CASES IN ABEYANCE
Case: 17-72260, 10/02/2017, ID: 10601894, DktEntry: 19, Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SAFER CHEMICALS HEALTHY FAMILIES, ET AL., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES
More informationBEFORE THE UNITED STATATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) )
BEFORE THE UNITED STATATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILITY COMMISSIONERS v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, et al. Case No. 16-1170 MOTION
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #19-5042 Document #1779028 Filed: 03/24/2019 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT : DAMIEN GUEDUES, et al., : : No. 19-5042 Appellants : : Consolidated
More informationORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #17-1014 Document #1668936 Filed: 03/31/2017 Page 1 of 10 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, ET
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT THE LOAN SYNDICATIONS AND TRADING ASSOCIATION, Petitioner-Appellant, v. No. 17-5004 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION; BOARD
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #15-1092 Document #1552767 Filed: 05/15/2015 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT AT&T INC., Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
More informationNos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. ROSALINA CUELLAR DE OSORIO; et al.
Case: 09-56786 06/06/2010 Page: 1 of 10 ID: 7361424 DktEntry: 19 Nos. 09-56786 & 09-56846 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROSALINA CUELLAR DE OSORIO; et al., Appellants, v.
More informationBefore the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMl\USSION Washington D.C
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMl\USSION Washington D.C. 20544 Ameren Missouri Petition for Declaratory ) Ruling Pursuant to Section 1.2(a) of ) WC Docket No. 13-307 the Commission's Rules ) OPPOSITION
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Proposed Changes to the Rules of Practice. Federal Circuit Rule 1
Rule 1. Scope of Rules; Title United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Proposed Changes to the Rules of Practice Federal Circuit Rule 1 (a) Reference to District and Trial Courts and Agencies.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ROME DIVISION
Case 4:14-cv-00139-HLM Document 34 Filed 08/31/15 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ROME DIVISION GEORGIACARRY.ORG, INC., and DAVID JAMES, Plaintiffs,
More informationCLERK RECEIVED. JTW OR UiSThICT ØF OL tikbta. FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRC1 lit ETSY, INC., Petitioner
JTW OR UiSThICT ØF OL tikbta USCA Case #18-1066 Document #1721105 Filed: 03/05/2018 Page 1 of 6 CtiGUJ thuu STATES COURT OP APPEALS OR DIBtfltOl &ilum v&ht NcLI)f MA S U1d IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
More information[NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #18-5289 Document #1754028 Filed: 10/05/2018 Page 1 of 13 [NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT AMERICAN FEDERATION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT MOTION OF TELMATE, LLC FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION
USCA Case #15-1461 Document #1604585 Filed: 03/17/2016 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT GLOBAL TEL*LINK, et al., Petitioners, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
More informationORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #17-1038 Document #1666639 Filed: 03/17/2017 Page 1 of 15 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) CONSUMERS FOR AUTO RELIABILITY
More informationBefore The Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C
Before The Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Connect America Fund WC Docket No. 10-90 A National Broadband Plan for Our Future GN Docket No. 09-51 Establishing Just
More informationNo (and consolidated cases) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #15-1381 Document #1675253 Filed: 05/15/2017 Page 1 of 14 ORAL ARGUMENT REMOVED FROM CALENDAR No. 15-1381 (and consolidated cases) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 07-56424 08/24/2009 Page: 1 of 6 DktEntry: 7038488 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT M. NELSON, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. No. 07-56424 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
More informationReview of Foreign Ownership Policies for Broadcast, Common Carrier and Aeronautical
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 07/13/2017 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2017-14644, and on FDsys.gov 6712-01 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
More informationORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO
USCA Case #17-1014 Document #1668929 Filed: 03/31/2017 Page 1 of 6 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO. 17-1014 ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO. 15-1363 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationBefore the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of State of Indiana and Nextel Communications, Inc. WT Docket No. 02-55 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: September
More informationCase 2:17-cv JLR Document 85 Filed 03/30/17 Page 1 of 13
Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 85 Filed 03/30/17 Page 1 of 13 The Honorable James L. Robart UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE JUWEIYA ABDIAZIZ ALI, et al., v. Plaintiffs,
More informationORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR MAY 8, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #15-1166 Document #1671681 Filed: 04/18/2017 Page 1 of 10 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR MAY 8, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT WALTER COKE, INC.,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 18-70133, 02/16/2018, ID: 10766592, DktEntry: 25, Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA and SANTA CLARA COUNTY CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT,
More informationORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 19, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #15-1385 Document #1670218 Filed: 04/07/2017 Page 1 of 10 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 19, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Murray Energy Corporation,
More informationFCC BROADBAND JURISDICTION: THE PSTN TRANSITION IN AN ERA OF CONGRESSIONAL PARALYSIS. Russell Lukas April 4, 2013
FCC BROADBAND JURISDICTION: THE PSTN TRANSITION IN AN ERA OF CONGRESSIONAL PARALYSIS City of Arlington, Texas v. FCC, S.C. No. 11-1545 Verizon v. FCC, D.C. Cir. No. 11-1355 In Re: FCC 11-161, 10th Cir.
More informationBefore the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) OPPOSITION TO MOTION REGARDING INFORMAL COMPLAINTS
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Restoring Internet Freedom ) ) ) ) WC Docket No. 17-108 OPPOSITION TO MOTION REGARDING INFORMAL COMPLAINTS NCTA The
More informationORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #15-1381 Document #1668276 Filed: 03/28/2017 Page 1 of 12 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) STATE OF NORTH
More informationORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO
USCA Case #15-1379 Document #1671083 Filed: 04/14/2017 Page 1 of 8 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO. 17-1014 ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO. 15-1363 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationCase 2:12-cv JFB-ETB Document 26 Filed 06/19/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 158 CV (JFB)(ETB)
Case 2:12-cv-01156-JFB-ETB Document 26 Filed 06/19/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 158 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------------X
More informationBefore the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) REPORT AND ORDER. Adopted: September 5, 2017 Released: September 8, 2017
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Modernizing Common Carrier Rules ) ) ) ) WC Docket No. 15-33 REPORT AND ORDER Adopted: September 5, 2017 Released: September
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 16 3784 JORGE BAEZ SANCHEZ, v. Petitioner, JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. No. 17 1438 DAVID
More informationAppellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 09/04/2012 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01018907223 Date Filed: 09/04/2012 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS September 4, 2012 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT IN
More informationApril&4,&2012& & & NTSB&Office&of&General&Counsel&& 490&L'Enfant&Plaza&East,&SW.&& Washington,&DC&20594H2003& &
April4,2012 NTSBOfficeofGeneralCounsel 490L'EnfantPlazaEast,SW. Washington,DC20594H2003 Re:$$Docket$Number$NTSB2GC2201120001:$Notice$of$Proposed$Rulemaking,$Rules$of$Practice$in$ Air$Safety$Proceedings$and$Implementing$the$Equal$Access$to$Justice$Act$of$1980$
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. FACEBOOK, INC., Petitioner
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD FACEBOOK, INC., Petitioner v. SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC, Patent Owner Case No. Patent No. 6,125,371 PETITIONER S REQUEST
More informationORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #18-1085 Document #1725473 Filed: 04/05/2018 Page 1 of 15 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES AGAINST TOXICS,
More informationCase 3:15-cv GNS Document 12 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 482
Case 3:15-cv-00773-GNS Document 12 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 482 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-00773-GNS ANGEL WOODSON
More informationBefore the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 ) ) In the Matter of ) ) Request for Stay ) WC Docket No. 06-122 Pending Reconsideration by ) U.S. TelePacific Corp. d/b/a ) TelePacific
More informationSTATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION IN RE: REVIEW OF THE ARBITRATOR S : DECISION IN GLOBAL NAPS, INC. S : PETITION FOR ARBITRATION PURSUANT : TO SECTION 252(b)
More informationrdd Doc 185 Filed 03/26/19 Entered 03/26/19 20:51:31 Main Document Pg 1 of 14
Pg 1 of 14 Hearing Date: April 16, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. (prevailing Eastern Time Objection Deadline: April 9, 2019, at 4:00 p.m.. (prevailing Eastern Time Stephen E. Hessler, P.C. James H.M. Sprayregen,
More informationCase M:06-cv VRW Document 145 Filed 02/01/2007 Page 1 of 9
Case M:0-cv-0-VRW Document Filed 0/0/00 Page of 0 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP John A. Rogovin (pro hac vice Randolph D. Moss (pro hac vice Samir C. Jain # Brian M. Boynton # Benjamin C. Mizer
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI`I
Hamilton v. State of Hawaii Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI`I COLLEEN MICHELE HAMILTON, Plaintiff, vs. STATE OF HAWAII, Defendant. CIVIL NO. 16-00371 DKW-KJM ORDER
More informationORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #15-1492 Document #1696614 Filed: 10/03/2017 Page 1 of 9 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) SIERRA CLUB,
More informationUnited States District Court
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION AMKOR TECHNOLOGY, INC., 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 v. TESSERA, INC., Petitioner(s), Respondent(s). / ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT United States of America, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, Case No. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona No. CV 10-1413-PHX-SRB
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Case: 10-1215 Document: 1265178 Filed: 09/10/2010 Page: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION, et al., ) Petitioners, ) ) v. ) No. 10-1131
More informationCase 2:17-cv WB Document 85 Filed 12/10/18 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:17-cv-04540-WB Document 85 Filed 12/10/18 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in
More informationCase: Document: 6 Filed: 11/03/2016 Pages: 6 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 16-3766 NAPERVILLE SMART METER AWARENESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NAPERVILLE, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District
More informationCase: 3:18-cv jdp Document #: 41 Filed: 01/16/19 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
Case: 3:18-cv-00763-jdp Document #: 41 Filed: 01/16/19 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN WILLIAM WHITFORD, et al. Plaintiffs, v. BEVERLY R. GILL, et al., Case
More informationDo-Overs: Overviewing the Various Mechanisms for Reevaluating an Issued Patent and How They Have Changed Over the Last Five Years +
Do-Overs: Overviewing the Various Mechanisms for Reevaluating an Issued Patent and How They Have Changed Over the Last Five Years + By: Brian M. Buroker, Esq. * and Ozzie A. Farres, Esq. ** Hunton & Williams
More informationNo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-72794, 04/28/2017, ID: 10415009, DktEntry: 58, Page 1 of 20 No. 14-72794 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN RE PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK NORTH AMERICA, and NATURAL RESOURCES
More informationCase No IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit DAVID JOHN SLATER, WILDLIFE PERSONALITIES, LTD.,
Case: 16-15469, 06/15/2018, ID: 10910417, DktEntry: 64, Page 1 of 10 Case No. 16-15469 IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit NARUTO, A CRESTED MACAQUE, BY AND THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIENDS,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #1730820 05/14/2018 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT UNITED KEETOOWAH BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS IN OKLAHOMA, OSAGE NATION, SHAWNEE TRIBE OF
More informationORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO
USCA Case #17-1014 Document #1671066 Filed: 04/13/2017 Page 1 of 8 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO. 17-1014 ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO. 15-1363 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT UNITED STATES TELECOM ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. Case No. 15-1063 (and consolidated cases) FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
More informationORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED: OCTOBER 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #15-1219 Document #1693477 Filed: 09/18/2017 Page 1 of 11 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED: OCTOBER 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) UTILITY SOLID
More information3RD CIRCUIT LOCAL APPELLATE RULES Proposed amendments Page 1
3RD CIRCUIT LOCAL APPELLATE RULES Proposed amendments 2008 - Page 1 1 L.A.R. 1.0 SCOPE AND TITLE OF RULES 2 1.1 Scope and Organization of Rules 3 The following Local Appellate Rules (L.A.R.) are adopted
More informationORAL ARGUMENT HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 27, No and Consolidated Cases
USCA Case #15-1363 Document #1669991 Filed: 04/06/2017 Page 1 of 10 ORAL ARGUMENT HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 No. 15-1363 and Consolidated Cases IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
More informationCase 1:04-cv EGS Document 9 Filed 01/21/2005 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:04-cv-01612-EGS Document 9 Filed 01/21/2005 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) BUSH-CHENEY 04, INC. ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 04:CV-01612 (EGS) v. ) ) FEDERAL
More informationUNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ) ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: INTERIM STORAGE PARTNERS LLC (Consolidated Interim Storage Facility Docket No. 72-1050
More informationORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #12-1272 Document #1384888 Filed: 07/20/2012 Page 1 of 9 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT White Stallion Energy Center,
More informationCase 2:17-cv JLR Document 179 Filed 04/07/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON.
Case :-cv-00-jlr Document Filed 0/0/ Page of The Honorable James L. Robart UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 0 STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., v. Plaintiffs, DONALD TRUMP, in his
More informationCase 2:07-cv MJP Document 22 Filed 04/10/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Case :0-cv-0-MJP Document Filed 0/0/00 Page of Hon. Marsha J. Pechman UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 ROSHANAK ROSHANDEL; VAFA GHAZI-MOGHADDAM; HAWO AHMED; and
More informationCase 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 02/08/18 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:18-cv-00287 Document 1 Filed 02/08/18 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VETERAN ESQUIRE LEGAL ) SOLUTIONS, PLLC, ) 6303 Blue Lagoon Drive ) Suite 400
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case: 09-56786 12/18/2012 ID: 8443743 DktEntry: 101 Page: 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROSALINA CUELLAR DE OSORIO; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS;
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT APPELLANT S MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL
USCA Case #18-3037 Document #1738356 Filed: 06/28/2018 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. Case No. 18-3037 PAUL
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
Rel: January 11, 2019 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama
More informationCase5:13-md LHK Document129 Filed01/27/14 Page1 of 7
Case:-md-00-LHK Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 IN RE: GOOGLE INC. GMAIL LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Case
More informationCase 1:16-cv JPO Document 75 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 11 X : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : X. Plaintiffs,
Case 116-cv-03852-JPO Document 75 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------- COMCAST CORPORATION,
More informationAppellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 02/10/2016 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
Appellate Case: 15-8126 Document: 01019569175 Date Filed: 02/10/2016 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT STATE OF WYOMING, et al; Petitioners - Appellees, and STATE OR NORTH DAKOTA,
More informationBefore the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Rules and Regulations Implementing the ) CG Docket No. CG 02-278 Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ) ) Petition
More informationWilliam G. Kanellis, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., Counsel for Defendant.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 07-532C Filed: July 7, 2008 TO BE PUBLISHED AXIOM RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, INC., Plaintiff, Bid Protest; Injunction; v. Notice Of Appeal As Of Right, Fed. R.
More informationREPLY COMMENTS OF THE COMPUTER & COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (CCIA)
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Petition of United States Telecom Association WC Docket No. 12-61 for Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. 160(c) from Enforcement
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 13-852 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. LORAINE SUNDQUIST, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. ILSA SARAVIA, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellees,
No. 18-15114 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ILSA SARAVIA, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General of the United States, et al. Defendants-Appellants.
More informationORAL ARGUMENT PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MARCH 31, No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #16-5287 Document #1720119 Filed: 02/28/2018 Page 1 of 5 ORAL ARGUMENT PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MARCH 31, 2017 No. 16-5287 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
More information18 105G. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT Oi, FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMB &!IPANIC MEDIA COALITION, Petitioner CASE NO. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
USCA Case #18-1056 Document #1719257 Filed: 02/23/2018 Page 1 of 6 UED Sid FOR DISTRICT OF eluma C IN THE UNITED STATES COURT Oi, FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMB &!IPANIC MEDIA COALITION, V Petitioner 18 105G
More informationCase 1:15-mc ESH Document 17 Filed 05/18/15 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:15-mc-00410-ESH Document 17 Filed 05/18/15 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN RE THE REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, CBS BROADCASTING INC., Misc.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF SCHEDULING ORDER AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FLORIDA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE (NAACP), as an organization and representative of its
More information) In the Matter of ) ) LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P. ) Docket No ML ) (National Enrichment Facility ) ) CLI MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
COMMISSIONERS: Nils J. Diaz, Chairman Edward McGaffigan, Jr. Jeffrey S. Merrifield UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETED 08/18/04 SERVED 08/18/04 ) In the Matter of ) ) LOUISIANA
More informationFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 16, 2009 The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit proposes to amend its Rules. These amendments are
More information