No In the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit RICHARD DOUGLAS HACKFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "No In the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit RICHARD DOUGLAS HACKFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant,"

Transcription

1 Appellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Page: 1 No In the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit RICHARD DOUGLAS HACKFORD, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, STATE OF UTAH, GARY R. HERBERT, in his capacity as Governor of Utah, SEAND D. REYES, in his capacity as Utah Attorney General, WASATCH COUNTY, SCOTT SWEAT, in his capacity as Wasatch County Attorney, and TYLER J. BERG, in his capacity as Assistant Wasatch County Attorney, Defendants-Appellees. On appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, The Honorable Bruce S. Jenkins presiding, Case Nos. 2:14-cv-645 and 75-cv-408 BRIEF OF STATE DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES Tyler R. Green Utah Solicitor General Sean D. Reyes Attorney General 350 N. State Street, Ste. 230 Salt Lake City, Utah Stanford E. Purser Deputy Solicitor General Randy S. Hunter Katharine H. Kinsman Assistant Attorneys General 160 East 300 South, 5th floor Salt Lake City, Utah ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED

2 Appellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Page: 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii STATEMENT OF PRIOR OR RELATED APPEALS iv JURISDICTION iv ISSUES PRESENTED v STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT STANDARD OF REVIEW ARGUMENT I. The Ute Partition Act gives Utah jurisdiction over mixed-blood Utes like Mr. Hackford II. Mr. Hackford s traffic violations did not occur in Indian country III. The district court properly denied a preliminary injunction...12 CONCLUSION STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(a) ECF CERTIFICATIONS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i

3 Appellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Page: 3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. U.S., 406 U.S. 128 (1971) Attorney General of Okla. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 565 F.3d 769 (10th Cir. 2009) Gardner v. U.S., 25 F.3d 1056 (10th Cir. 1994) Gardner v. Wilkins, 535 F. App x 767 (10th Cir. 2013) , 9 Hackford v. Babbitt, 14 F.3d 1457 (10th Cir. 1994) Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399 (1994) Holdeman v. Devine, 572 F.3d 1190 (10th Cir. 2009) Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984) State v. Gardner, 827 P.2d 980 (Ut. Ct. App. 1992) State v. Reber, 2007 UT 36, 171 P.3d U.S. v. Murdock, 919 F. Supp (D. Utah 1996) ii

4 Appellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Page: 4 U.S. v. Von Murdock, 132 F.3d 534 (10th Cir. 1997) Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah, 773 F.2d 1087 (10th Cir. 1985) (en banc) , 11 Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation v. Utah, 790 F.3d 1000 (10th Cir. 2015) , 9 Statutes 25 U.S.C , 6, 7, 9 iii

5 Appellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Page: 5 STATEMENT OF PRIOR OR RELATED APPEALS The State of Utah, Governor Gary R. Herbert, and Attorney General Sean D. Reyes (State Defendants), are not aware of any pending appeals related to Mr. Hackford (and do not consider the various prior and current appeals arising from the Ute Indian Tribe litigation to be related to him). Mr. Hackford did file a prior appeal in this matter, which the Court dismissed pursuant to Rule 42(b) on December 30, Hackford v. State of Utah, No ; App STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The State Defendants do not contest Mr. Hackford s recitation of the facts and law giving this Court jurisdiction to review his appeal. iv

6 Appellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Page: 6 ISSUES PRESENTED 1. Did the district court correctly decide that the Ute Partition Act subjects Mr. Hackford to the State s criminal jurisdiction based on his undisputed status as a mixed-blood Ute Indian? The issue was raised below and addressed by the district court. Appendix (App.) , , Did the district court correctly decide that Mr. Hackford s traffic violation did not occur in Indian country, therefore subjecting him to the State s criminal jurisdiction? This issue was raised below and addressed by the district court. App , Did the district court properly deny Mr. Hackford s request for a preliminary injunction enjoining the state court criminal proceedings against him? This issue was raised below and addressed by the district court. App. 199, Appellant s Appendix, as corrected and filed on November 4, 2015, has two different sets of appendix page numbers in the lower right hand corner. State Defendants cite to the appendix page numbers farthest to the right (which are formatted as 1 of 439 ). v

7 Appellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Page: 7 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS Mr. Hackford admits he is not a member of any federallyrecognized Indian tribe. App. 256, , 297, , Rather, the Federal Register identifies him as a mixed-blood Ute Indian with enrollment number 142 under the Ute Partition Act, 25 U.S.C App In late 2013, a State highway patrol trooper stopped Mr. Hackford on State Road 40 for traffic violations committed around milepost 44. App. 207, 257. That part of S.R. 40 runs near the northern end of Strawberry Reservoir and lies within the Uinta National Forest and the historic boundaries of the Uintah & Ouray Indian Reservation. App But the Indian country status of this area began to change in 1905, when President Roosevelt exercising congressionally-granted authority withdrew certain lands from the reservation and set them apart for use as a reservoir site. App Five years later, in 1910, Congress expressly extinguished all of the Indians right, title and interest to these withdrawn lands. App. 209; Supplemental Appendix (Supp. App.) 017 (copy of the 1910 Act). This area became known as the Strawberry Valley Project. App Mr. Hackford s traffic violations 1

8 Appellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Page: 8 and the traffic stop all happened in this reservoir-project area that had been withdrawn from the reservation and stripped of all Indian interests, rights, or title. App Mr. Hackford was later charged with and convicted of the traffic violations in Wasatch County Justice Court, while protesting that the State lacked jurisdiction over his conduct as an alleged Indian driving in Indian country. App. 90, 207; Aplt. Br. at 7-9. Mr. Hackford then appealed his convictions to the state district court, Fourth Judicial District, Wasatch County, Case No App With the state-court proceedings still pending, Mr. Hackford filed the underlying suit requesting, in relevant part: (1) a declaratory judgment that the Defendants lacked jurisdiction to prosecute his traffic violations, and (2) a permanent injunction against Defendants further prosecuting him for those violations. 2 App Mr. Hackford also simultaneously filed a motion for preliminary injunction to stop Defendants prosecution of his traffic violations. App Hackford s complaint also requested declaratory judgments and permanent injunctions on other issues, App , but he does not appear to challenge in this appeal the dismissal of those other claims. 2

9 Appellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Page: 9 The district court quickly dismissed the complaint, App , but later vacated the dismissal and ordered Defendants to answer the complaint. App The Defendants filed their answers and also opposed the preliminary injunction motion with their own response briefing and supporting evidence. App , , The district court heard arguments on the preliminary injunction request and ultimately denied the motion and sua sponte dismissed the complaint with prejudice. App The court concluded that Mr. Hackford was not a member of a federally-recognized Indian tribe and that the traffic violations did not occur in Indian country. App The court subsequently denied Mr. Hackford s motion to reconsider. App In the meantime, the state district court has repeatedly stayed Mr. Hackford s prosecution during the pendency of the federal court proceedings. The current stay lasts until March 16, See Docket 3

10 Appellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Page: 10 Report, State v. Hackford, No , Fourth District Court, Wasatch County, Utah (Supp. App ). 3 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The district court properly denied a preliminary injunction and dismissed the complaint. To avoid Utah s criminal jurisdiction, Mr. Hackford must show that he is a member of a federally-recognized Indian tribe and that the traffic violations occurred in Indian country. But it is undisputed that Mr. Hackford is a mixed-blood Ute, not a member of federally-recognized Indian tribe. The Ute Partition Act expressly subjects mixed-blood Utes to state laws to the same degree as any other citizen. Federal and State case law have consistently held that mixed-blood Utes may be criminally prosecuted in Utah state courts. Nothing Mr. Hackford argues undermines these dispositive facts and law regarding his Indian status vis-à-vis Utah s criminal jurisdiction. In addition, this Court has already rejected the argument made again by Mr. Hackford that the Ute Partition Act violates equal protection principles. 3 Though not part of the record, the state district court s docket sheet is a publicly available document of which the Court can take judicial notice. It is included in the supplemental appendix for the convenience of the Court. 4

11 Appellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Page: 11 As to the location of the violations, this Court has previously held that the relevant lands were withdrawn from the reservation and all Indian rights, title and interest in the land were expressly extinguished by act of Congress. Even the Ute Tribe agrees that the lands at issue are not part of Indian country. Finally, there is no basis for a preliminary injunction (even assuming Mr. Hackford were correct on the merits) because the state court has already repeatedly stayed its proceedings during the pendency of this federal litigation. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court reviews the denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. Attorney General of Okla. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 565 F.3d 769, 775 (10th Cir. 2009). An abuse of discretion occurs if the district court commits an error of law or makes clearly erroneous factual findings. Id. The district court also entered final judgment on Mr. Hackford s claims based on the parties Joint Pre-Trial Order, the parties briefing and exhibits regarding the preliminary injunction, and the oral arguments of counsel. App In essence, the district court 5

12 Appellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Page: 12 conducted a bench trial. In that case, the Court reviews the district court s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. Holdeman v. Devine, 572 F.3d 1190, 1192 (10th Cir. 2009). ARGUMENT The State recognizes, of course, that it lacks jurisdiction over crimes committed by members of federally-recognized Indians tribes in Indian country. Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399, 407 (1994); Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation v. Utah, 790 F.3d 1000, (10th Cir. 2015). Within Indian country, the State s jurisdiction is limited to crimes by non-indians against non-indians and victimless crimes by non-indians. Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463, 465 n.2 (1984); Ute Indian Tribe, 790 F.3d at To prevail on appeal Mr. Hackford therefore must prove that he belongs to a federally-recognized Indian tribe and that the traffic violations took place in Indian country. He cannot prove either fact. I. The Ute Partition Act gives Utah jurisdiction over mixedblood Utes like Mr. Hackford. State Defendants will not rehearse the purposes, procedures, and effects of the Ute Partition Act, 25 U.S.C. 677 et seq., which have been outlined elsewhere. See, e.g., Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. U.S., 406 6

13 Appellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Page: 13 U.S. 128, (1971); Hackford v. Babbitt, 14 F.3d 1457, (10th Cir. 1994); U.S. v. Murdock, 919 F. Supp. 1534, (D. Utah 1996). To resolve this appeal, it suffices to say that all parties agree Mr. Hackford is a mixed-blood Ute for purposes of the Ute Partition Act, App. 208, and that mixed-blood Utes... no longer ha[ve] the status of federally-recognized Indians. Murdock, 919 F. Supp. at Moreover, Mr. Hackford is not a member of any other federallyrecognized Indian tribe. App. 256, , 297, , Importantly, the Ute Partition Act expressly mandates that mixed-blood Utes are subject to the same State laws as any other State citizen: such individual shall not be entitled to any of the services performed for Indians because of his status as an Indian. All statutes of the United States which affect Indians because of their status as Indians shall no longer be applicable to such member over which supervision has been terminated, and the laws of the several States shall apply to such member in the same manner as they apply to other citizens within their jurisdiction. 25 U.S.C. 677v (emphasis added). Based on the Ute Partition Act, various state and federal courts have recognized that Utah may exercise jurisdiction over mixed-blood 7

14 Appellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Page: 14 Utes. See, e.g., Gardner v. U.S., 25 F.3d 1056, *3 (10th Cir. 1994) (unpublished); ( Where a termination act such as [the Ute Partition Act] ended the federal trust relationship with an Indian and exposed him to state law, he is subject to state criminal jurisdiction ); State v. Reber, 2007 UT 36, 23-27, 171 P.3d 406 (holding the State had jurisdiction over defendants, who could not claim Indian status through ancestors whose Indian status was terminated by Ute Partition Act); State v. Gardner, 827 P.2d 980, 981 (Ut. Ct. App. 1992) ( By terminating federal control over mixed-blood Utes, Congress expressly transferred jurisdiction over them to state courts. ); see also Gardner v. Wilkins, 535 F. App x 767, (10th Cir. 2013) (unpublished) (affirming dismissal of claims where plaintiff asserting Indian status had already litigated Utah s authority over him and lost ). Mr. Hackford makes myriad arguments about why he should still be considered a federally-recognized Indian immune from state court jurisdiction. But none of the arguments meaningfully address, much less undermine, the dispositive facts and controlling law: Mr. Hackford is a mixed-blood Ute and a controlling federal statute dictates that the laws of the several States shall apply to [ mixed-blood Utes] in the 8

15 Appellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Page: 15 same manner as they apply to other citizens within their jurisdiction. 25 U.S.C. 677v. The details of his heritage, dealings, and relationships on the reservation do not change the result in this case. As this Court explained in an analogous situation: Litigation regarding Gardner's Indian status is a road well-traveled. He does not claim to be a member of a federally recognized tribe. Rather, he claims only to be a descendant of a former member, as are many other Americans. Despite his best efforts in federal, state, and tribal court, this heritage does not entitle him to Indian status whether or not he lives and works on the reservation. Gardner v. Wilkins, 535 F. App x at 767. Unable to get around the Ute Partition Act, Mr. Hackford argues that it violates equal protection principles. But the Court has already rejected that argument, among other constitutional challenges to the Act. U.S. v. Von Murdock, 132 F.3d 534, 542 (10th Cir. 1997) ( the Act does not constitute improper racial discrimination, and we reject Mr. Murdock s claims that the Act violates due process and equal protection under the Fifth Amendment. ); see also Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation v. Probst, 428 F.2d 491, 498 (10th Cir.1970 ) (on 9

16 Appellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Page: 16 denial of reh'g) (per curiam) ( the classification into the two groups was supported by the Indians, was relevant to the purposes of the legislation, and had a reasonable basis. We find no arbitrary or capricious discrimination which violates Fifth Amendment due process. ). In sum, Utah state courts can exercise criminal jurisdiction over Mr. Hackford because he is a mixed-blood Ute subject to the same State laws as every other Utah citizen. The district court can be affirmed on this ground alone. II. Mr. Hackford s traffic violations did not occur in Indian country. Even if Mr. Hackford belonged to a federally-recognized Indian tribe, the State could still prosecute him because the traffic violations did not occur in Indian country. This Court long ago decided that the Strawberry Reservoir lands at issue here are no longer part of Indian country. Indeed, every opinion from Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah, 773 F.2d 1087 (10th Cir. 1985) (en banc) modified on other grounds, Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah, 114 F.3d 1513 (10th Cir. 1997), makes the point that Congress clearly extinguished any Indian interest in the lands pursuant to the 10

17 Appellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Page: 17 Act of April 4, 1910, ch. 140, 36 Stat Ute Indian Tribe, 773 F.2d at 1089 (the 1910 Act clearly extinguished a portion of the reservation lands for reclamation purposes ); id. at 1098 (Seymour, J., concurring) ( Congress was completely clear [in the 1910 Act] when it terminated Uintah rights in... the Strawberry Reservoir Project lands ); id. at 1099 (noting Indian rights were actually terminated only when Congress passed the 1910 Act creating the Strawberry Reservoir Project ); id. at 1115 (Seth, J., dissenting) (quoting 1910 Act and stating Congress clearly extinguished any Indian interest in the Strawberry River lands and noting that [n]either side disputes the trial court s holding that the reservation was diminished to the extent of the 56,000- acre Strawberry River withdrawal ); see also Supp. App. 017 (copy of the 1910 Act). This point is so settled that even the Ute Tribe s counsel appeared at the preliminary injunction hearing to state, in part, that the Strawberry Reservoir lands at issue here are not part of the Tribe s reservation. App ; see also Supp. App (Ute Indian Tribe s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction). 11

18 Appellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Page: 18 Mr. Hackford largely ignores the Court s prior holdings and the Ute Tribe s own position. Instead, he argues that a 1988 federal law shows the relevant land area now constitutes Indian country. Aplt. Br. at But the law, even as described by Mr. Hackford, is basically a land transfer between federal agencies that designates which agency will administer the land. Supp. App (copy of Public Law , October 31, 1988, 102 Stat. 2826). The statute does nothing to reverse the express language of the 1910 Act extinguishing all Indian right, title and interest to the land nor does it undermine this Court s prior holding as to the withdrawn status of the land. Neither Mr. Hackford s traffic violations nor the stop occurred in Indian country. He is therefore subject to state court jurisdiction regardless of whether he is part of a federally-recognized Indian tribe. The district court can be affirmed on this ground alone. III. The district court properly denied a preliminary injunction Based on the foregoing analyses, Mr. Hackford cannot show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and is therefore not entitled to a preliminary injunction. State Defendants will not belabor the other injunction factors. But one point remains worth making. 12

19 Appellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Page: 19 Even if Mr. Hackford were right on the merits, there is still no need for a preliminary injunction. As Mr. Hackford acknowledges, the state district court continues to stay the prosecution during the pendency of the federal proceedings. Aplt. Br. at 9; Supp. App A preliminary injunction from a federal court would be superfluous. CONLCUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should affirm the district court s dismissal of Mr. Hackford s complaint and denial of a preliminary injunction. STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT State Defendants do not believe oral argument is needed to resolve this matter. But State Defendants will willingly participate in oral argument should the Court deem it appropriate. Respectfully submitted, s/ Stanford E. Purser Tyler Green Utah Solicitor General Stanford E. Purser Deputy Solicitor General Randy S. Hunter Katharine H. Kinsman Assistant Attorneys General 13

20 Appellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Page: 20 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(a) 1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitations of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B) because: [x] this brief contains 2,565 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii). 2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because: [x] this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Word in 14 point Century Schoolbook font. s/ Stanford E. Purser ECF CERTIFICATIONS Pursuant to Section II(I) of the Court s CM/ECF User s Manual, the undersigned certifies that: 1. all required privacy redactions have been made; 2. hard copies of the foregoing brief required to be submitted to the clerk s office are exact copies of the brief as filed via ECF; and 3. the brief filed via ECF was scanned for viruses with the most recent version of Microsoft Security Essentials v , and according to the program is free of viruses. s/ Stanford E. Purser 14

21 Appellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Page: 21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 4th day of January, 2016, a true, correct and complete copy of the foregoing State Defendants Answer Brief was filed with the Court and served on counsel of record via the Court s ECF system: s/ Stanford E. Purser 15

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT UTE INDIAN TRIBE, MYTON,

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT UTE INDIAN TRIBE, MYTON, Appellate Case: 15-4080 Document: 01019509860 01019511871 Date Filed: 10/19/2015 10/22/2015 Page: 1 No. 15-4080 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT UTE INDIAN TRIBE, v. Plaintiff-Appellant

More information

Case 2:13-cv DB Document 2 Filed 12/03/13 Page 1 of 10

Case 2:13-cv DB Document 2 Filed 12/03/13 Page 1 of 10 Case 213-cv-01070-DB Document 2 Filed 12/03/13 Page 1 of 10 J. Preston Stieff (4764) J. Preston Stieff Law Offices 136 East South Temple, Suite 2400 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone (801) 366-6002

More information

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, CHARLES D.

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, CHARLES D. Appellate Case: 17-4059 Document: 01019889341 01019889684 Date Filed: 10/23/2017 Page: 1 No. 17-4059 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee,

More information

This opinion is subject to revision before publication in the Pacific Reporter. IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS. ----ooooo----

This opinion is subject to revision before publication in the Pacific Reporter. IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS. ----ooooo---- This opinion is subject to revision before publication in the Pacific Reporter. IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooooo---- State of Utah, v. Plaintiff and Appellee, Rickie L. Reber, Steven Paul Thunehorst,

More information

Case 2:17-cv DN Document 47 Filed 10/27/17 Page 1 of 13

Case 2:17-cv DN Document 47 Filed 10/27/17 Page 1 of 13 Case 217-cv-00321-DN Document 47 Filed 10/27/17 Page 1 of 13 Jesse C. Trentadue (#4961) Britton R. Butterfield (#13158) SUITTER AXLAND, PLLC 8 East Broadway, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Tel (801)

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, et al.

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, et al. Appellate Case: 18-4013 Document: 010110021345 Date Filed: 07/11/2018 Page: 1 No. 18-4013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation,

More information

Nos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

Nos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Appellate Case: 16-8068 Document: 01019780139 Date Filed: 03/15/2017 Page: 1 Nos. 16-8068, 16-8069 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT STATE OF WYOMING; STATE OF COLORADO; INDEPENDENT

More information

Case 2:16-cv DB Document 13 Filed 10/06/16 Page 1 of 8

Case 2:16-cv DB Document 13 Filed 10/06/16 Page 1 of 8 Case 2:16-cv-00459-DB Document 13 Filed 10/06/16 Page 1 of 8 John D. Hancock (#10435) Skipper M. Dean (#14968) JOHN D. HANCOCK LAW GROUP, PLLC 72 North 300 East, Suite A (123-13) Roosevelt, UT 84066 Phone:

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, et al.

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, et al. Appellate Case: 16-4154 Document: 01019730944 Date Filed: 12/05/2016 Page: 1 No. 16-4154 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation,

More information

Case 2:16-cv CW Document 85 Filed 02/17/18 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

Case 2:16-cv CW Document 85 Filed 02/17/18 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION Case 2:16-cv-00579-CW Document 85 Filed 02/17/18 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION UTE INDIAN TRIBE OF THE UINTAH AND OURAY RESERVATION, et al.,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION Case 2:17-cv-00321-DN Document 23 Filed 05/26/17 Page 1 of 13 Richita Hackford Pro se 820 East 300 North 113-10 Roosevelt, Utah 84066 Cell Phone (435) 724-1236 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF

More information

Appeal No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE, TULALIP TRIBES, et al.,

Appeal No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE, TULALIP TRIBES, et al., Case: 18-35441, 10/24/2018, ID: 11059304, DktEntry: 20, Page 1 of 20 Appeal No. 18-35441 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TULALIP TRIBES,

More information

Case 2:17-cv BSJ Document 56 Filed 09/05/18 Page 1 of 12

Case 2:17-cv BSJ Document 56 Filed 09/05/18 Page 1 of 12 Case 2:17-cv-01140-BSJ Document 56 Filed 09/05/18 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. UINTAH VALLEY SHOSHONE

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. v. ) No. 1:02 CV 2156 (RWR) DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. v. ) No. 1:02 CV 2156 (RWR) DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ORANNA BUMGARNER FELTER, ) et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. 1:02 CV 2156 (RWR) ) GALE NORTON, ) Secretary of the Interior, et al. ) ) Defendants.

More information

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. VALERIE SOTO, as Guardian Ad Litem of Y.D., a minor, Plaintiff-Appellant,

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. VALERIE SOTO, as Guardian Ad Litem of Y.D., a minor, Plaintiff-Appellant, Case: 17-16705, 11/22/2017, ID: 10665607, DktEntry: 15, Page 1 of 20 No. 17-16705 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VALERIE SOTO, as Guardian Ad Litem of Y.D., a minor, Plaintiff-Appellant,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. v. ) No. 1:02 CV 2156 (RWR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. v. ) No. 1:02 CV 2156 (RWR) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ORANNA BUMGARNER FELTER, ) et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. 1:02 CV 2156 (RWR) ) GALE NORTON, ) Secretary of the Interior, et al. ) ) Defendants.

More information

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Case: 11-50814 Document: 00511723798 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2012 No. 11-50814 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit TEXAS MEDICAL PROVIDERS PERFORMING ABORTION SERVICES, doing

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit No. 17-6064 IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit MARCUS D. WOODSON Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRACY MCCOLLUM, IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. On Appeal from

More information

Case 1:02-cv RWR Document 41 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:02-cv RWR Document 41 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:02-cv-02156-RWR Document 41 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ORANNA BUMGARNER FELTER, ) et al., ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 02-2156 (RWR)

More information

No IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

No IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit No. 17-15589 IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit STATE OF HAWAII, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants-Appellants. On Appeal from the United States

More information

Case No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

Case No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Appellate Case: 16-4154 Document: 01019876598 Date Filed: 09/25/2017 Page: 1 Case No. 16-4154 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT UTE INDIAN TRIBE OF THE UINTAH AND OURAY RESERVATION,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Case: 17-51063 Document: 00514380489 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/09/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Appellate Case: 12-5136 Document: 01019118132 Date Filed: 08/30/2013 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ) ) Appellee/Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 12-5134 &

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- RICKIE L. REBER, TEX WILLIAM

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Appellate Case: 16-9542 Document: 01019783914 Date Filed: 03/23/2017 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT STATE OF UTAH, on behalf of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality,

More information

Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Appellate Case: 12-5134 Document: 01018990262 Date Filed: 01/25/2013 Page: 1 Nos. 12-5134 & 12-5136 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT State of Oklahoma, Appellee/Plaintiff, v.

More information

In The United States Court of Appeals For the Third Circuit

In The United States Court of Appeals For the Third Circuit Case: 18-3170 Document: 003113048345 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/01/2018 No. 18-3170 In The United States Court of Appeals For the Third Circuit ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY RIFLE & PISTOL CLUBS, INC., BLAKE ELLMAN,

More information

Appellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 02/10/2016 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

Appellate 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 information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiff-Appellee, Defendants-Appellants.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiff-Appellee, Defendants-Appellants. Appellate Case: 18-4038 Document: 01019969195 Date Filed: 04/03/2018 Page: 1 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Plaintiff-Appellee, Case No.: 18-4038

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. DAMIAN STINNIE, et al.,

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. DAMIAN STINNIE, et al., Appeal: 17-1740 Doc: 41 Filed: 08/21/2017 Pg: 1 of 12 No. 17-1740 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DAMIAN STINNIE, et al., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, RICHARD HOLCOMB, in his

More information

No In The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

No In The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Appellate Case: 15-6117 Document: 01019504579 Date Filed: 10/08/2015 Page: 1 No. 15-6117 In The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit UNITED PLANNERS FINANCIAL SERVICES OF AMERICA, LP, Plaintiff-Appellant,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Case: 15-40238 Document: 00512980287 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT STATE OF TEXAS, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) Case Number: 15-40238

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT APPELLEES RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS MOTION FOR INITIAL HEARING EN BANC

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT APPELLEES RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS MOTION FOR INITIAL HEARING EN BANC Appellate Case: 14-3246 Document: 01019343568 Date Filed: 11/19/2014 Page: 1 Kail Marie, et al., UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Case No. 14-3246 Robert Moser,

More information

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 09-16942 09/22/2009 Page: 1 of 66 DktEntry: 7070869 No. 09-16942 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CACHIL DEHE BAND OF WINTUN INDIANS OF THE COLUSA INDIAN COMMUNITY, a federally

More information

NO IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT CADDO NATION OF OKLAHOMA. WICHITA AND AFFILIATED TRIBES, et al.

NO IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT CADDO NATION OF OKLAHOMA. WICHITA AND AFFILIATED TRIBES, et al. Appellate Case: 18-6142 Document: 010110092916 Date Filed: 12/04/2018 Page: 1 NO. 18-6142 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CADDO NATION OF OKLAHOMA v. WICHITA

More information

Case 1:11-cv RHS-WDS Document 5 Filed 11/10/11 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

Case 1:11-cv RHS-WDS Document 5 Filed 11/10/11 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO Case 1:11-cv-00946-RHS-WDS Document 5 Filed 11/10/11 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO LOS ALAMOS STUDY GROUP, v. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN 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 information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 15 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID NASH, v. Plaintiff - Appellant, KEN LEWIS, individually and

More information

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO REFER TRIBAL MEMBERS CHARGED WITH MISDEMEANOR OFFENSES TO TRIBAL COURT FOR PROSECUTION

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO REFER TRIBAL MEMBERS CHARGED WITH MISDEMEANOR OFFENSES TO TRIBAL COURT FOR PROSECUTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO REFER TRIBAL MEMBERS CHARGED WITH MISDEMEANOR OFFENSES TO TRIBAL COURT FOR PROSECUTION This Agreement is made and entered into by and between those Utah public agencies listed

More information

No (and consolidated cases) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No (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 information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN 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 information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

No 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 information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ) INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE ) PROJECT, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) ) v. ) No. 17-1351 ) DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., ) ) Defendants-Appellants.

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 14-1406 In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF NEBRASKA ET AL., PETITIONERS v. MITCH PARKER, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. EDWARD TUFFLY, AKA Bud Tuffly, Plaintiff-Appellant,

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. EDWARD TUFFLY, AKA Bud Tuffly, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 16-15342 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDWARD TUFFLY, AKA Bud Tuffly, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. ON APPEAL

More information

NO Criminal UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

NO Criminal UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 14-3888 Criminal UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, vs. JUSTIN JANIS, Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District

More information

CASE No & UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

CASE No & UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Appellate Case: 15-7041 07-7068 Document: 01019683492 01019766000 Date Filed: 09/06/2016 02/15/2017 Page: 1 CASE No. 077068 & 15-7041 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICKDWAYNEMURPHY,

More information

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT This Agreement is made and entered into by and between those Utah public agencies listed hereafter as signatories to this Agreement, the United

More information

Case 4:15-cv CVE-PJC Document 32 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/31/15 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Case 4:15-cv CVE-PJC Document 32 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/31/15 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA Case 4:15-cv-00386-CVE-PJC Document 32 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/31/15 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. E. Scott Pruitt, in his official

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Case: 19-10011 Document: 00514897527 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/01/2019 No. 19-10011 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT STATE OF TEXAS; STATE OF WISCONSIN; STATE OF ALABAMA; STATE OF ARIZONA;

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. VANCE NORTON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. VANCE NORTON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. Appellate Case: 15-4170 Document: 01019623185 Date Filed: 05/18/2016 Page: 1 No. 15-4170 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT VANCE NORTON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. UTE

More information

NO UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NO UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 16-36038, 03/09/2017, ID: 10350631, DktEntry: 26, Page 1 of 24 NO. 16-36038 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JANE AND JOHN DOES 1-10, individually and on behalf of others similarly

More information

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SUSAN L. VAUGHAN, ANDERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SUSAN L. VAUGHAN, ANDERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, No. 16-60104 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SUSAN L. VAUGHAN, v. Plaintiff- Appellant, ANDERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District

More information

PUBLISH TENTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiffs-Appellees, No

PUBLISH TENTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiffs-Appellees, No PUBLISH FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit September 19, 2007 Elisabeth A. Shumaker UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT MINER ELECTRIC, INC.; RUSSELL E. MINER, v.

More information

IN 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 USCA Case #16-1170 Document #1659435 Filed: 02/03/2017 Page 1 of 8 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT National Association of Regulatory

More information

NO IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

NO IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, Case: 16-30276, 04/12/2017, ID: 10393397, DktEntry: 13, Page 1 of 18 NO. 16-30276 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. TAWNYA BEARCOMESOUT,

More information

Case 2:75-cv BSJ Document 321 Filed 10/22/13 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

Case 2:75-cv BSJ Document 321 Filed 10/22/13 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION Case 2:75-cv-00408-BSJ Document 321 Filed 10/22/13 Page 1 of 11 Frances C. Bassett, Pro Hac Vice Admission Jeremy J. Patterson, Pro Hac Vice Admission Jeffrey S. Rasmussen, Pro Hac Vice Admission Sandra

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE, Plaintiff-Appellant

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE, Plaintiff-Appellant Case: 17-1951 Document: 00117256402 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2018 Entry ID: 6151158 No. 17-1951 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE, Plaintiff-Appellant

More information

cv IN THE. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. ELIZABETH A. TREMBLAY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

cv IN THE. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. ELIZABETH A. TREMBLAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, Case 14-2031, Document 43, 11/03/2014, 1361074, Page 1 of 21 14-2031-cv To Be Argued By: PROLOY K. DAS, ESQ. IN THE United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ELIZABETH A. TREMBLAY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

More information

Case No ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

Case No ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Appellate Case: 16-4175 Document: 01019738023 Date Filed: 12/19/2016 Page: 1 Case No. 16-4175 ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT LYNN D. BECKER, Plaintiff Counter

More information

Case No , & (consolidated) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Case No , & (consolidated) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Case: 13-4330 Document: 003111516193 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/24/2014 Case No. 13-4330, 13-4394 & 13-4501 (consolidated) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT PPL ENERGYPLUS, LLC, et

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 10-30274 10/13/2011 ID: 7926483 DktEntry: 26 Page: 1 of 11 FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-30274 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * TERRY A. STOUT, an individual, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit Plaintiff - Appellant, FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 27, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN 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 information

STATE DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS RESPONSES TO AMICUS BRIEF OF UNITED STATES AND FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

STATE DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS RESPONSES TO AMICUS BRIEF OF UNITED STATES AND FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Nos. 17-2433, 17-2445 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH CIRCUIT VILLAGE OF OLD MILL CREEK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ANTHONY STAR, in his official capacity as Director of the Illinois

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No (1:15-cv GBL-MSN)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No (1:15-cv GBL-MSN) Appeal: 16-1110 Doc: 20-1 Filed: 01/30/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 Total Pages:(1 of 52) FILED: January 30, 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1110 (1:15-cv-00675-GBL-MSN) NATIONAL COUNCIL

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation et al v. Ute Distribution Corporation et al Doc. 10 Case 2:06-cv-00557-DAK Document 10 Filed 07/14/2006 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Proposed Changes to the Rules of Practice. Federal Circuit Rule 1

United 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 information

Case No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. ULTRAMERCIAL, LLC and ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., and WILDTANGENT, INC.

Case No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. ULTRAMERCIAL, LLC and ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., and WILDTANGENT, INC. Case No. 2010-1544 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ULTRAMERCIAL, LLC and ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, HULU, LLC, Defendant, and WILDTANGENT, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 17-532 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- CLAYVIN HERRERA,

More information

IN 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 USCA Case #14-5004 Document #1562709 Filed: 07/15/2015 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Larry Elliott Klayman, et al., Appellees-Cross-Appellants,

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case: 14-80121 09/11/2014 ID: 9236871 DktEntry: 4 Page: 1 of 13 Docket No. 14-80121 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit MICHAEL A. COBB, v. CITY OF STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA, IN RE: CITY OF

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No (L) (5:15-cv D)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No (L) (5:15-cv D) Appeal: 16-1270 Doc: 53 Filed: 07/14/2016 Pg: 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1270 (L) (5:15-cv-00156-D) RALEIGH WAKE CITIZENS ASSOCIATION; JANNET B. BARNES;

More information

Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. COOPER TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent, v.

Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. COOPER TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent, v. Nos. 16-2721 & 16-2944 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COOPER TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Repondent/Cross-Petitioner.

More information

Nos and (Consolidated) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. STATE OF WYOMING, and WYOMING FARM BUREAU FEDERATION,

Nos and (Consolidated) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. STATE OF WYOMING, and WYOMING FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, Appellate Case: 14-9512 Document: 01019414647 Date Filed: 04/13/2015 Page: 1 Nos. 14-9512 and 14-9514 (Consolidated) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT STATE OF WYOMING, and WYOMING FARM

More information

Case: Document: 6 Filed: 11/03/2016 Pages: 6 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case: 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 information

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #18-5257 Document #1766994 Filed: 01/04/2019 Page 1 of 5 United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 18-5257 September Term, 2018 FILED ON: JANUARY 4, 2019 JANE DOE

More information

No CLAYVIN HERRERA, Petitioner, STATE OF WYOMING, Respondent.

No CLAYVIN HERRERA, Petitioner, STATE OF WYOMING, Respondent. No. 17-532 FILED JUN z 5 2018 OFFICE OF THE CLERK SUPREME COURT, U.S. CLAYVIN HERRERA, Petitioner, STATE OF WYOMING, Respondent. On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The District Court Of Wyoming, Sheridan

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, HOLMES and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, HOLMES and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. TWILLADEAN CINK, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit November 27, 2015 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellant, v.

More information

[NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

[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 information

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Case: 17-3752 Document: 003113097118 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/28/2018 No. 17-3752 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DONALD J.

More information

Case: , 05/19/2016, ID: , DktEntry: 33-1, Page 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case: , 05/19/2016, ID: , DktEntry: 33-1, Page 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 14-16051, 05/19/2016, ID: 9982763, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 1 of 3 (1 of 8) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED MAY 19 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. No

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. No Case: 17-1711 Document: 00117356751 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2018 Entry ID: 6208126 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT No. 17-1711 JOHN BROTHERSTON; JOAN GLANCY, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

More information

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BISHOP PAIUTE TRIBE, in its official capacity ) No. 01-15007 and as a representative of its Tribal members; ) Bishop Paiute Gaming Corporation,

More information

Case 2:16-cv JNP Document 179 Filed 03/05/19 Page 1 of 8

Case 2:16-cv JNP Document 179 Filed 03/05/19 Page 1 of 8 Case 2:16-cv-00832-JNP Document 179 Filed 03/05/19 Page 1 of 8 Milo Steven Marsden (Utah State Bar No. 4879) Michael Thomson (Utah State Bar No. 9707) Sarah Goldberg (Utah State Bar No. 13222) John J.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN 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 information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT NO B VICTOR DIMAIO, Plaintiff-Appellant,

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT NO B VICTOR DIMAIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT NO. 07-14816-B VICTOR DIMAIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE AND FLORIDA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, Defendants/Appellees. APPEAL

More information

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT CASE NO MANUEL LEONIDAS DURAN ORTEGA, Petitioner,

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT CASE NO MANUEL LEONIDAS DURAN ORTEGA, Petitioner, Case: 18-14563 Date Filed: 11/13/2018 Page: 1 of 18 RESTRICTED THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT CASE NO. 18-14563 MANUEL LEONIDAS DURAN ORTEGA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case: 17-107 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 02/23/2017 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit In re: GOOGLE INC., Petitioner 2017-107 On Petition for Writ

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL 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 information

REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANTS

REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANTS Case: 15-36003, 09/19/2016, ID: 10127799, DktEntry: 26, Page 1 of 14 Docket No. 15-36003 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit GLENN EAGLEMAN, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ROCKY

More information

OFFICE OF THE CLERK B

OFFICE OF THE CLERK B United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit OFFICE OF THE CLERK Byron White United States Courthouse 1823 Stout Street Denver, Colorado 80257 Elizabeth A. Shumaker (303) 844-3157 Douglas E. Cressler

More information

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 14-1642 Richard M. Smith; Donna Smith; Doug Schrieber; Susan Schrieber; Rodney A. Heise; Thomas J. Welsh; Jay Lake; Julie Lake; Kevin Brehmer;

More information

Case 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 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 information

Case 1:16-cv LRS Document 14 Filed 09/01/16

Case 1:16-cv LRS Document 14 Filed 09/01/16 0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON KLICKITAT COUNTY, a ) political subdivision of the State of ) No. :-CV-000-LRS Washington, ) ) Plaintiff, ) MOTION TO DISMISS ) ) vs. ) )

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 07-56424 06/08/2009 Page: 1 of 7 DktEntry: 6949062 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 information

In The Supreme Court of the United States

In The Supreme Court of the United States No. 14-340 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- FRIENDS OF AMADOR

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case: 12-16258, 09/13/2016, ID: 10122368, DktEntry: 102-1, Page 1 of 5 (1 of 23) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHRISTOPHER BAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOUIS KEALOHA, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Case: 16-40563 Document: 00513754748 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/10/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT JOHN MARGETIS; ALAN E. BARON, Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals

More information

Nos and IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Nos and IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 06-56325 10/27/2009 Page: 1 of 15 DktEntry: 7109530 Nos. 06-56325 and 06-56406 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CLAUDE CASSIRER, Plaintiff/Appellee v. KINGDOM OF SPAIN,

More information