WILLIAM J. OLSON, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW
|
|
- Erick Day
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case: Document: 14 Filed: 03/21/2019 Page: 1 WILLIAM J. OLSON (VA, D.C.) HERBERT W. TITUS (VA OF COUNSEL) JEREMIAH L. MORGAN (D.C., CA ONLY) ROBERT J. OLSON (VA, D.C.) WILLIAM J. OLSON, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 370 MAPLE AVENUE WEST, SUITE 4 VIENNA, VIRGINIA TELEPHONE (703) FAX (703) wjo@mindspring.com CREEKSIDE LANE W INCHESTER, VA TELEPHONE (540) FAX (540) March 21, 2019 Ms. Deborah S. Hunt Clerk, United States Court of Appeals for e Six Circuit 540 Potter Stewart U.S. Courouse 100 E. Fif Street Cincinnati, Ohio Re: In re Gun Owners of America, Inc., et al., No Dear Ms. Hunt: Petitioners Gun Owners of America, Inc., et al., hereby submit additional information to e Court regarding e filing at was made in is case in e district court on e evening of March 19 and 20, The summary nature of Petitioners communication is dictated by ese unique circumstances. Today, at 5:37 PM EST, e district court for e Western District of Michigan filed an Opinion and Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Docket No. 18-cv-1429, ECF # 48. Pending before is Court is Petitioners Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and Motion for a Stay of Agency Action, filed is past Tuesday, March 19, 2019, which sought two separate forms of relief from is Court. Early is evening, e district court issued its order denying Petitioners relief below, ereby mooting eir petition for writ of mandamus. However, Petitioners motion for stay pending appeal, pursuant to FRAP 8, has now been briefed by bo parties, and remains pending before is Court for consideration. Petitioners will be promptly filing and perfecting eir appeal from e district court s order but, due to time constraints imposed by e district court s late opinion and order, respectfully request at, in e interim, is Court consider Plaintiff-Appellants pending Rule 8 motion.
2 Case: Document: 14 Filed: 03/21/2019 Page: 2 2 Practically speaking, ere is no time to do oerwise. At is, e eleven hour two business days before e final rule is to take effect Petitioners are unable to properly and fully prepare a brief challenging e district court s decision below. Petitioners have no time to order an appeal transcript of oral argument from e district court, to be used in support of a brief. There is not even time to ask e district court to voluntarily stay its order pending appeal. The district court has foreclosed e luxury of time, leaving Petitioners wi no time to do much of anying to e prejudice not only of Petitioners, but also is Court, which should have e opportunity to properly hear is case wiout e unfair constraints at have been imposed. 1 As explained below and in eir Tuesday filing, Petitioners have raised significant questions of law and fact at are undoubtedly serious enough to warrant a stay of agency action in is case until is Court has properly heard Petitioners appeal. In fact, e district court below expressly found Petitioners reading of e statute to be bo reasonable, and supported by case law. ECF #48 at The District Court Erred in Finding e Statute Ambiguous. As Petitioners have noted, bo parties have repeatedly declared e statutory text to be unambiguous. Petition at 11. The district court, however, disagreed wi bo parties, finding at e statutory terms are ambiguous. ECF #48 at 1. First, e district court found at e word automatically... is ambiguous as to wheer e word automatically precludes any and all application of non-trigger, manual forces in order for multiple shots to occur. Id. at (emphasis added). But e issue is not wheer e word 2 1 Earlier today, anoer U.S. Court of Appeals granted a stay of e final rule, for e purpose of giving e court adequate time to properly consider e motion, however crafted e stay to apply only to e Plaintiff in at case. Aposhian v. Barr, (10 Cir.). 2 The Court correctly frames e issue as wheer e forward pressure exerted by e shooter using e non-trigger hand requires e conclusion at a bump stock does not shoot automatically. ECF # 48 at 12.
3 Case: Document: 14 Filed: 03/21/2019 Page: 3 3 automatically might be ambiguous when extracted from e statute in is way. Fortunately, Congress used many words to define a machinegun. Indeed, at is how individual words togeer gain unambiguous meaning. As Justice Cardozo once explained, e meaning of a statute is to be looked for, not in any single section [or word], but in all e parts togeer... Panama Ref. Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388, 439 (1935) (Cardozo, J., dissenting). As Petitioners have argued, e statutory context makes clear precisely how much human input is permitted while still rendering a firearm a machinegun automatically... by a single function of e trigger. Petition at 12. The district court correctly recognized at bump stocks require more human input an a single function of e trigger (ECF #48 at 13), yet its atextual analysis of automatically reads at limitation out of e statute. Contrary to e district court s conclusion below, it is not up to agencies to decide what automatically means in e statute, and it is error for courts to defer to em. Second, e district court found ambigu[ity] wi respect to e phrase single function of e trigger. ECF # 48 at 13. The court concluded at [t]he statute does not make clear wheer function refers to e trigger as a mechanical device [as Petitioners argued] or wheer function refers to e impetus for action at ensues [as e government argued]. Bo interpretations are reasonable. ECF #38 at (emphasis added). The district court looked to legal precedents and dictionary definitions in an attempt to decide. Id. at 14. However, it does not appear at e court began wi e statute itself. Clearly and unambiguously, function of e trigger refers to e mechanical process rough which e trigger goes and, while it is depressed, activates repeated shots automatically. It certainly does not refer to e biological process of setting a mechanical process into motion. The court erred by failing to consider e statute on its own. Most importantly, however, e district court never concludes at much less explains how a bump stock fires even by a 3 single pull of e trigger. As Petitioners have explained, e trigger is bo functioned and pulled separately, each time a shot is bump fired. The district court offers no way around is reality. 3 Petitioners made additional arguments at e district court did not address, yet are fatal to e government s case. Many are briefly summarized in eir Motion filed Tuesday.
4 Case: Document: 14 Filed: 03/21/2019 Page: 4 4 Finally, at oral argument on March 6, 2019, e district court asked e government about Petitioners assertion at, if a previously-unambiguous statute is now declared ambiguous, it must be declared void for vagueness. The court queried as to e implications for criminal prosecutions at previously have relied on an unambiguous criminal statute. Yet e district court does not wrestle wi ose serious issues here. Thus, is Court must carefully consider e ramifications of a declaration at a criminal statute is suddenly ambiguous, after 85 years of being unambiguous. Indeed, for decades, courts consistently concluded at e statute was unambiguous. See, e.g., U.S. v. Williams, 364 F.3d 556, 558 (4 Cir. 2004); U.S. v. TRW Rifle 7.62x51mm Caliber, One model 14 Serial , 447 F.3d 686, 689 n. 4 (9 Cir. 2006); U.S. v. Olofson, 563 F.3d 652, 660 (7 Cir. 2009); U.S. v. Fleischli, 305 F.3d 643, 655 (7 Cir. 2002). Suddenly now, our separate and jealously independent ird branch of government is consistently concluding at e statute is ambiguous. ECF # 48; Guedes v. ATF, 18-cv-2988 (D.D.C.); Codrea v. ATF, 18-cv-3086; Aposhian v. Barr, 19- cv-37 (D.Utah) (e Utah court does not explicitly find e statute ambiguous, but nevereless permits e government to interpret undefined statutory terms, someing at would be entirely unnecessary if e statute were unambiguous). In e future, when oerwise-law-abiding bump stock owners inevitably are prosecuted for possession of unregistered machineguns, will e courts flip back, and conclude at e statute is again unambiguous? 2. The District Court Erred in Deferring to e Government Under Chevron. In e two related D.C. bump stock cases (currently pending in e circuit court), Judge Friedrich issued an opinion on February 25, 2019, which began and ended wi Chevron deference. ECF # 22 in 18-cv-3086-DLF (D.D.C.) Ignoring e fact at e government had never asked for Chevron deference in its interpretation of is criminal statute, e D.C. court nevereless found ATF entitled to it. Recognizing e manifest error in e D.C. opinion, e government immediately filed a Notice of Supplemental Auority in e district court below.
5 Case: Document: 14 Filed: 03/21/2019 Page: 5 ECF # 38. In it, e government expressly disclaimed Chevron deference, and argued at e ATF is not entitled to any deference in is matter. Id. at 2. Ignoring e government s pleas not to base its opinion on Chevron deference, e district court below doubled down, claiming at [w]hile e parties might like to avoid Chevron... is Court cannot. ECF 48 at 10. Rejecting Petitioners argument at it is e duty of e court not e agency to determine e meaning of e statute and ereby to say what e law is, e district court deferred entirely to e agency, even ough it admitted Petitioners understanding of e statute is bo reasonable and supported by case law. Id. at Petitioners have raised a serious question wheer Chevron deference indeed, deference of any kind applies here. If is Court were to conclude it does not, en e district court s opinion is a nullity. That is a matter is Court should address before more an a half million bump stocks are ordered destroyed. 3. The District Court Ratified ATF s Factual Errors. Ironically, e district court states at, [t]o appreciate how e new interpretation of e definition of machine gun implicates bump-stock devices, one must understand how e device works. ECF # 48 at 7. Yet e court immediately makes clear at it does not understand how bump stocks operate. The court adequately describes what a bump stock is, but not how it works. The court claims at a bump stock... harnesses e rearward recoil energy from e shot causing e weapon to slide back... Id. (emphasis added). Not only is is untrue, it doesn t make any sense. Recoil is explained by physics Newton s Third Law of Motion. When a round is fired from a rifle, e rifle slides back into e bump stock all on its own not because e bump stock harnesses e energy or serves any function at all in e process, but simply because at s e direction recoil (and us e rifle) moves. The district court also adopts e government s assertion at a bump stock somehow initiat[es] [a] firing sequence as if is sequence is automatic and wiout additional shooter input. Id. at 7. Yet as Petitioners have explained, bump fire wi or wiout a bump stock is noing more an rapidly-
6 Case: Document: 14 Filed: 03/21/2019 Page: 6 occurring, semi-automatic fire, at requires constant and varying degrees of human input in order to continue. Bump fire is a technique at depends on human skill and practice not on e presence or absence of a plastic stock. 6 CONCLUSION The government cannot interpret a statute unless e statute is ambiguous. The government never argued at e statute was ambiguous here, yet e district court jumped to e rescue, declaring e statutory definition unclear. Likewise, e government s tortured and atextual understanding of e statutory terms cannot prevail unless significant deference is afforded e agency. The government argued it should receive no deference, but once again e district court stood ready to defer completely to e agency. Finally, e government s case must fail unless it is permitted to twist e facts, because e operation of bump stocks (properly understood) do not fit even wi e regulatory definitions ATF has promulgated. For e reasons above (and oers ere is simply no time to brief), e district court s opinion below is in clear error, bo factually and legally, and is furer weighs in favor of e granting of a stay, so at e Court has e time to properly consider Petitioners appeal. KERRY L. MORGAN Respectfully submitted, /s/ Robert J. Olson ROBERT J. OLSON* PENTIUK, COUVREUR & KOBILJAK, P.C. WILLIAM J. OLSON 2915 Biddle Avenue, Suite 200 JEREMIAH L. MORGAN Wyandotte, Michigan HERBERT W. TITUS (734) WILLIAM J. OLSON, P.C. 370 Maple Avenue W., Suite 4 Vienna, Virginia (703) Counsel for Petitioners *Attorney of Record
7 Case: Document: 14 Filed: 03/21/2019 Page: 7 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED at service of e foregoing letter, was made, is 21st day of March 2019, by e Court s Case Management/Electronic Case Files system upon all parties or eir counsel of record. /s/ Robert J. Olson Robert J. Olson Counsel for Appellants
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Case: 19-1268 Document: 11-1 Filed: 03/20/2019 Page: 1 (1 of 16) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) In re ) GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA, ) INC., et al., ) Case No. 19-1268 ) Petitioners,
More informationNo. 19- In the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
No. 19-444444444444444444444444 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit IN RE GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL., EMERGENCY PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
More informationCase 1:18-cv PLM-RSK ECF No. 40 filed 03/01/19 PageID.305 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:18-cv-01429-PLM-RSK ECF No. 40 filed 03/01/19 PageID.305 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA, INC., et al., v. Plaintiffs,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND FOR A STAY OF AGENCY ACTION
Case: 19-1268 Document: 10 Filed: 03/20/2019 Page: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT IN RE GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL. Case No. 19-1268 OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY PETITION
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Case 1:18-cv-01429-PLM-RSK ECF No. 48 filed 03/21/19 PageID.453 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA, et al., ) Plaintiffs, ) )
More informationBRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT S MOTION TO REVIEW DISTRICT COURT S DENIAL OF MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2294 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID R. OLOFSON, Defendant-Appellant. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT S MOTION
More informationCase 1:18-cv PLM-RSK ECF No. 10 filed 12/26/18 PageID.166 Page 1 of 32
Case 1:18-cv-01429-PLM-RSK ECF No. 10 filed 12/26/18 PageID.166 Page 1 of 32 GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION GUN OWNERS
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 informationBEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION In re: ) Notice of Availability of a Petition ) Notice 2014-09 for Rulemaking, Federal Office ) (Federal Register, August 31, 2007) ) FREE SPEECH COALITION, INC.,
More informationNo In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
No. 15-15307 444444444444444444444444 In e United States Court of Appeals for e Nin Circuit ARIZONA DREAM ACT COALITION, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. JANICE K. BREWER, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.
More informationCase: 3:14-cv slc Document #: 77 Filed: 04/27/15 Page 1 of 8
Case: 3:14-cv-00734-slc Document #: 77 Filed: 04/27/15 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN WOODMAN S FOOD MARKET, INC., v. Plaintiff, THE CLOROX COMPANY
More informationCase 1:18-cv DLF Document 19 Filed 01/29/19 Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:18-cv-02988-DLF Document 19 Filed 01/29/19 Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA : DAMIEN GUEDUES, et al., : : Plaintiffs : : Case No. 1:18-cv-02988-DLF v. : : Judge
More informationCase 2:09-cv MCE-KJM Document 32 Filed 08/26/2009 Page 1 of 12
Case :0-cv-0-MCE-KJM Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 Alan Gura (Calif. Bar No. ) Gura & Possessky, PLLC 0 N. Columbus St., Suite 0 Alexandria, VA 0..0/Fax 0.. Donald E.J. Kilmer, Jr. (Calif. Bar No. )
More informationCase 6:09-cv GFVT Document 19 Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION LONDON
Case 6:09-cv-00200-GFVT Document 19 Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION LONDON Defendant. Civil No. 09-200-GFVT ORDER *** *** *** ***
More informationCase 3:07-cr JM Document 25 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 1 of 12
Case :0-cr-0-JM Document Filed 0//0 Page of KAREN P. HEWITT United States Attorney NICOLE ACTON JONES TARA MCGRATH Assistant U.S. Attorneys California State Bar Nos., Federal Office Building 0 Front Street,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
1 1 1 1 1 1 THOMAS P. O BRIEN United States Attorney CHRISTINE C. EWELL Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Criminal Division CHRISTOPHER BRUNWIN Assistant United States Attorney Deputy Chief, Violent
More informationCase 1:19-cv LAS Document 4 Filed 03/28/19 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
Case 1:19-cv-00449-LAS Document 4 Filed 03/28/19 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS THE MODERN SPORTSMAN, LLC; RW ARMS, LTD.; MARK MAXWELL, Individually; and MICHAEL STEWART, Individually,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-1341 Document: 31 Filed: 04/11/2014 Page: 1 APRIL DEBOER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT -vs- 6 Cir #14-1341 ED Mi #12-civ-10285 RICHARD SNYDER,
More informationCase 9:15-cv KAM Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2015 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 9:15-cv-80328-KAM Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2015 Page 1 of 10 DAVID A. FAILLA and DONNA A. FAILLA, Appellants, vs. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.
More informationWILLIAM J. OLSON, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW
WILLIAM J. OLSON (VA, D.C.) JOHN S. MILES (VA, D.C., MD OF COUNSEL) HERBERT W. TITUS (VA OF COUNSEL) JEREMIAH L. MORGAN (D.C., CA ONLY) ROBERT J. OLSON (VA, D.C.) WILLIAM J. OLSON, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION 3:75-CR :06-CV-24-F
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION 3:75-CR-26-3 5:06-CV-24-F UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JEFFREY R. MacDONALD Defendant UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO
More informationNo In The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
No. 08-2294 444444444444444444444444 In The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID R. OLOFSON, Defendant-Appellant. On Appeal from
More informationNo. 49,116-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * Versus * * * * * * * * * * By: C. A. Martin, III * * * * *
Judgment rendered July 9, 2014. Application for rehearing may be filed wiin e delay allowed by Art. 2166, LSA-CCP. No. 49,116-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * LANDFORD ANTHONY
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 DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
McPhail v. LYFT, INC. Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION JENNIFER MCPHAIL A-14-CA-829-LY LYFT, INC. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON
Lane, et al v. Capital Acquisitions, et al Doc. 217 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 04-60602-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON RICHARD LANE and FAITH LANE, v. Plaintiffs, CAPITAL ACQUISITIONS
More informationCAPITAL CASE. No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DONALD WAYNE STROUTH, Petitioner. vs. ROLAND W. COLSON, Warden.
CAPITAL CASE No. 12-7720 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DONALD WAYNE STROUTH, Petitioner vs. ROLAND W. COLSON, Warden Respondent ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT
More informationWILLIAM J. OLSON, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW
WILLIAM J. OLSON (D.C., VA.) JOHN S. MILES (D.C., MD., VA. OF COUNSEL) HERBERT W. TITUS (VA. OF COUNSEL) JEREMIAH L. MORGAN (CA ONLY) ROBERT J. OLSON (VA) WILLIAM J. OLSON, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 370 MAPLE
More informationS 2292 S T A T E O F R H O D E I S L A N D
LC00 01 -- S S T A T E O F R H O D E I S L A N D IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY JANUARY SESSION, A.D. 01 A N A C T RELATING TO CRIMINAL OFFENSES -- WEAPONS Introduced By: Senators Seveney, Coyne, DiPalma, Pearson,
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR. Case No. 00 DR XXX N T. J. F., Respondent,
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION K. A. F., Petitioner, vs. Case No. 00 DR XXX N T. J. F., Respondent, ORDER ON WIFE S MOTION TO COMPEL
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LEXINGTON CIVIL ACTION NO WOB PLAINTIFFS COMBINED SUR-REPLY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LEXINGTON CIVIL ACTION NO. 98-431-WOB KEITH RENE GUY, SR., et al PLAINTIFFS VS. LEXINGTON-FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY GOVERNMENT, et al DEFENDANTS
More informationH 7075 SUBSTITUTE A AS AMENDED ======== LC003045/SUB A ======== S T A T E O F R H O D E I S L A N D
01 -- H 0 SUBSTITUTE A AS AMENDED LC000/SUB A S T A T E O F R H O D E I S L A N D IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY JANUARY SESSION, A.D. 01 A N A C T RELATING TO CRIMINAL OFFENSES -- WEAPONS Introduced By: Representatives
More informationWILLIAM J. OLSON, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW
WILLIAM J. OLSON (VA, D.C.) JOHN S. MILES (VA, D.C., MD OF COUNSEL) HERBERT W. TITUS (VA OF COUNSEL) JEREMIAH L. MORGAN (D.C., CA ONLY) ROBERT J. OLSON (VA) WILLIAM J. OLSON, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 370
More informationS 0464 S T A T E O F R H O D E I S L A N D
LC000 0 -- S 0 S T A T E O F R H O D E I S L A N D IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY JANUARY SESSION, A.D. 0 A N A C T RELATING TO CRIMINAL OFFENSES -- WEAPONS Introduced By: Senators Coyne, Goodwin, Sosnowski, Felag,
More informationS e n t e n c i n g P a r t n e r s
Published By Joaquin & Duncan, L.L.C.; A Law Firm of Federal Sentencing Attorneys July 2016 S e n t e n c i n g P a r t n e r s About Sentencing Partners: Sentencing Partners is published by Joaquin and
More informationCase 9:12-cv KAM Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2013 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 9:12-cv-80792-KAM Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2013 Page 1 of 7 JOHN PINSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 12-80792-Civ-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN vs. Plaintiff,
More informationCase 1:12-cv BAH Document 8-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:12-cv-00919-BAH Document 8-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GUN OWNERS FOUNDATION, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 12-919 (BAH BUREAU OF ALCOHOL,
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 13-827 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- JOHN M. DRAKE,
More informationCase 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 12/18/18 Page 1 of 37
Case 1:18-cv-02988 Document 1 Filed 12/18/18 Page 1 of 37 Adam Kraut, Esq. D.C. Bar No. PA0080 AKraut@CivilRightsDefenseFirm.com Joshua Prince, Esq. D.C. Bar No. PA0081 Joshua@CivilRightsDefenseFirm.com
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No In re: MARTIN MCNULTY,
Case: 10-3201 Document: 00619324149 Filed: 02/26/2010 Page: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 10-3201 In re: MARTIN MCNULTY, Petitioner. ANSWER OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION RICHARD HAMBLEN ) ) v. ) No. 3:08-1034 ) JUDGE CAMPBELL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) MEMORANDUM I. Introduction Pending before
More information1. SEE NOTICE ON REVERSE. 2. PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT. 3. STAPLE ALL ADDITIONAL PAGES 1/30/2014 3:13CV739
Case: 14-319 Document: 7-1 Page: 1 02/14/2014 1156655 2 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT CIVIL APPEAL PRE-ARGUMENT STATEMENT (FORM C) 1. SEE NOTICE ON REVERSE. 2. PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Respondents. Petitioner, Gerald Carter (hereafter, the petitioner ), is a state prisoner
Carter v. State of Sou Carolina et al Doc. 5 6:05-cv-02851-TLW Date Filed 10/06/2005 Entry Number 5 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Gerald Stephon Carter, #175348; vs.
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Chapter 9 Hon. Steven W. Rhodes
In re: CITY OF DETROIT Debtor. / UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Case No. 13-53846-SWR Chapter 9 Hon. Steven W. Rhodes CLASS CLAIMANTS MOTION FOR ALLOWANCE
More informationNo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Plaintiff Appellee,
No. 16-5202 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Plaintiff Appellee, v. SYLVIA M. BURWELL, in her official capacity as Secretary of
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PETER M. WILLIAMSON, State Bar # 0 WILLIAMSON & KRAUSS Panay Way, Suite One Marina del Rey, CA 0 () - Attorneys for Plaintiff ANTHONY MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. v. CASE NO: 8:12-cv-251-T-26TGW O R D E R
Case 8:12-cv-00251-RAL-TGW Document 26 Filed 05/18/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID 203 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION LUCIANA DE OLIVEIRA, on behalf of herself and ose similarly
More informationCase 1:18-cv LY Document 6 Filed 07/10/18 Page 1 of 5. In the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas Austin Division
Case 1:18-cv-00504-LY Document 6 Filed 07/10/18 Page 1 of 5 In e United States District Court for e Western District of Texas Austin Division Jack Darrell Hearn, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No.
More informationC.T. HOME BUILDERS, INC. and * IN THE CIRCUIT COURT HI-TECH HOMES, INC. * FOR WORCESTER COUNTY Plaintiffs * STATE OF MARYLAND
C.T. HOME BUILDERS, INC. and * IN THE CIRCUIT COURT HI-TECH HOMES, INC. * FOR WORCESTER COUNTY Plaintiffs * STATE OF MARYLAND v. V. * CASE NO. 23-C-02-000934-PS STERLING S. WYAND, and * CAROLYN W. BYERS
More informationCase3:09-cv JSW Document142 Filed09/22/11 Page1 of 7
Case:0-cv-00-JSW Document Filed0// Page of 0 MELINDA HAAG (SBN United States Attorney JOANN M. SWANSON (SBN Chief, Civil Division JONATHAN U. LEE (SBN NEIL T. TSENG (SBN Assistant United States Attorneys
More informationIN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT, CIVIL DIVISION FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO. : v. : Judge David E. Cain
IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT, CIVIL DIVISION FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO OHIOANS FOR CONCEALED CARRY, et al., : Plaintiffs, : : Case No. 18CV5216 v. : Judge David E. Cain CITY OF COLUMBUS, et al., : Defendants.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT AND PORT JEFFERSON STEAMBOAT COMPANY, ET AL., Plaintiffs, CASE NO. 3:03 CV 599 (CFD) - against - BRIDGEPORT PORT AUTHORITY, July 13, 2010
More informationCRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE Copyright July State Bar of California
Copyright July 1994 - State Bar of California Jane, a police officer who was not in uniform, attempted to make a lawful arrest of Al for distribution of a controlled substance. Doug, who did not know eier
More informationCase 9:14-cv KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2015 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 9:14-cv-81184-KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2015 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 14-81184-CIV-MARRA EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:
Carl Shusterman, CA Bar # Amy Prokop, CA Bar #1 The Law Offices of Carl Shusterman 00 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 10 Los Angeles, CA 001 Telephone: (1 - Facsimile: (1-0 E-mail: aprokop@shusterman.com Attorneys
More informationCase 3:15-cv DJH Document 19 Filed 02/04/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 984
Case 3:15-cv-00075-DJH Document 19 Filed 02/04/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 984 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-cv-75-DJH KENTUCKY EMPLOYEES
More informationCase 5:07-cv VAP-JCR Document 29 Filed 02/18/2008 Page 1 of 11
Case :0-cv-0-VAP-JCR Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 LESTER J. MARSTON - California State Bar No. 000 E-mail: marston@pacbell.net RAPPORT AND MARSTON 0 West Perkins Street P.O. Box Ukiah, CA Telephone:
More informationCase 1:18-cv Document 2 Filed 12/18/18 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:18-cv-02988 Document 2 Filed 12/18/18 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DAMIEN GUEDES, et al : : Plaintiffs : v. : Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-2988 : BUREAU
More informationCase: Document: Filed: 09/04/2012 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. Filed: September 04, 2012
Case: 12-4055 Document: 006111420965 Filed: 09/04/2012 Page: 1 Deborah S. Hunt Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 9, 2005 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 9, 2005 Session RALPH ALLEY, ET AL., v. QUEBECOR WORLD KINGSPORT, INC., d/n/a QUEBECOR WORLD HAWKINS, INC. Direct Appeal from e Circuit Court for Hawkins
More information3:10-cv SEM # 38 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
3:10-cv-03187-SEM # 38 Page 1 of 7 E-FILED Friday, 31 October, 2014 02:49:58 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
More informationCase: Document: 15 Filed: 07/06/2016 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. Filed: July 06, 2016
Case: 16-3746 Document: 15 Filed: 07/06/2016 Page: 1 Deborah S. Hunt Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE CINCINNATI,
More informationCase 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 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 informationRule Change #1998(14)
Rule Change #1998(14) Chapter 32. Colorado Appellate Rules Original Jurisdiction Certification of Questions of Law Rule 21. Procedure in Original Actions The entire existing C.A.R. Rule 21 is repealed
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM OPINION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM CRAFTWORLD INTERIORS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant vs. KING ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. OPINION Supreme Court Case No.: CVA97-043 Superior Court Case No.:CV0914-94
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) On March 13, 2019, Plaintiff Elgene Luzon De-Amor,
De-Amor et al v. Cabalas et al Doc. 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ELGENE LUZON DE-AMOR, vs. Plaintiff, BUENAVENTURA C. CABALAN, ET AL., Defendants. CIVIL NO. 19-00128
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case File No. 10-CV-00137
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ONEIDA TRIBE OF INDIANS OF WISCONSIN, Plaintiff, v. Case File No. 10-CV-00137 VILLAGE OF HOBART, WISCONSIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFF S REPLY BRIEF
More informationCase: Document: 16 Filed: 12/02/2016 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. Filed: December 02, 2016
Case: 16-6680 Document: 16 Filed: 12/02/2016 Page: 1 Deborah S. Hunt Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE CINCINNATI,
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO BUCKEYE FIREARMS FOUNDATION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. A 1803098 v. THE CITY OF CINCINNATI, et al., Defendants. MOTION OF STATE
More informationCase: 1:10-cv SJD Doc #: 35 Filed: 12/30/10 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 830 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Case 110-cv-00820-SJD Doc # 35 Filed 12/30/10 Page 1 of 10 PAGEID # 830 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION TRACIE HUNTER, et al., vs. Plaintiffs, HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD
More informationCase: 1:10-cv SJD Doc #: 35 Filed: 12/30/10 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 830 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Case 110-cv-00820-SJD Doc # 35 Filed 12/30/10 Page 1 of 10 PAGEID # 830 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION TRACIE HUNTER, et al., vs. Plaintiffs, HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD
More informationNO. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DOYLE RANDALL PAROLINE PETITIONER. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENTS and AMY UNKNOWN
NO. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DOYLE RANDALL PAROLINE PETITIONER VS. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENTS and AMY UNKNOWN ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CASE NO CR. DEUNDRA JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. STATE OF TEXAS, Plaintiff-Appellee.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CASE NO. 05-10-00991-CR DEUNDRA JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant v. STATE OF TEXAS, Plaintiff-Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE 194 DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY,
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 informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION No GOLD (and consolidated cases)
Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 658 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2012 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION No. 04-21448-GOLD (and consolidated cases)
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Tompkins v. Rite Aid Doc. 117 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION Larry Tompkins, ) Civil Action No. 8:09-02369-JMC ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) )
More informationCase 2:11-cv JTM-JCW Document Filed 10/31/13 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 2:11-cv-00926-JTM-JCW Document 494-1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LUTHER SCOTT, JR., and LOUISIANA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP CIVIL ACTION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:08 MD 1932
Grace et al v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. Doc. 111 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:08 MD 1932 IRENE GRACE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER
More informationUNOPPOSED MOTION FOR STAY PENDING SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS
Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 30 Filed 06/22/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-289-RBJ ZAKARIA HAGIG, v. Plaintiff,
More informationCRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web
Order Code RL30095 CRS Report for Congress Received rough e CRS Web Committee Funding Resolutions and Processes, 106 Congress Updated March 25, 1999 Paul S. Rundquist Specialist in American National Government
More informationCIRCUIT COURT PROCEDURES FOR CIVIL ACTIONS
CIRCUIT COURT PROCEDURES FOR CIVIL ACTIONS Revised April 26, 2018 1 CIRCUIT COURT FORMS Commencement of Civil Action by Filing in a complaint in the Virginia Beach Circuit Court or a Civil Case Appealed
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 19-5042 Consolidated with 19-5043, 5044 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT DAMIEN GUEDES, et al., Appellants, v. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC., ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 1:13-cv-1364 -v- ) ) HONORABLE PAUL L. MALONEY TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS, CORP., )
More information[ORAL ARGUMENT NOT SCHEDULED] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT : : : : MOTION TO GOVERN
USCA Case #10-5203 Document #1374021 Filed 05/16/2012 Page 1 of 5 [ORAL ARGUMENT NOT SCHEDULED] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT x MOHAMMED SULAYMON BARRE, Appellant,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 14-646 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States SAI, v. Petitioner, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District
More informationCase 0:06-cv KAM Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2008 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:06-cv-60557-KAM Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2008 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA NO. 06-60557-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON LIZ ORDONEZ-DAWES, v. Plaintiff,
More informationUSCA Case # Document # Filed: 07/19/2011 Page 1 of 8 [NOT SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] No
USCA Case #11-5121 Document #1319507 Filed: 07/19/2011 Page 1 of 8 [NOT SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] No. 11-5121 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT IN RE COALITION
More informationCase: Document: 20 Filed: 01/26/2017 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. Filed: January 26, 2017
Case: 16-2424 Document: 20 Filed: 01/26/2017 Page: 1 Deborah S. Hunt Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE CINCINNATI,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 10-56971 01/03/2012 ID: 8018028 DktEntry: 78-1 Page: 1 of 14 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDWARD PERUTA, et. al., No. 10-56971 Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-02371-IEG-BGS
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States. District of Columbia and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Petitioners, Dick Heller, et al.
In the Supreme Court of the United States 6 2W7 District of Columbia and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Petitioners, Dick Heller, et al. ON APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
More informationNo In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
No. 12-17808 444444444444444444444444 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit GEORGE K. YOUNG, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF HAWAII, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. On Appeal
More informationCase 3:17-cr JAG Document 26 Filed 01/30/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 155
Case 3:17-cr-00123-JAG Document 26 Filed 01/30/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 155 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) Case
More informationNo 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 informationCase 2:10-cr SRB Document 303 Filed 03/21/12 Page 1 of 11
Case :-cr-0-srb Document 0 Filed 0// Page of 0 ANN BIRMINGHAM SCHEEL Acting United States Attorney District of Arizona MONICA B. KLAPPER Assistant U.S. Attorney Arizona State Bar No.0 Monica.Klapper@usdoj.gov
More informationCase: Document: 484 Page: 1 08/06/
Case: 13-3088 Document: 484 Page: 1 08/06/2014 1288754 9 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500
More informationNo In the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit RICHARD DOUGLAS HACKFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Appellate Case: 15-4120 Document: 01019548299 Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Page: 1 No. 15-4120 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit RICHARD DOUGLAS HACKFORD, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, STATE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. JESSE JOE HERNANDEZ, PETITIONER, vs. No.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JESSE JOE HERNANDEZ, PETITIONER, vs. No. 3:06-CV-846-P NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In re BRITTANY RAE KLOCEK. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Petitioner-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION November 30, 2010 9:05 a.m. v No. 292993 Washtenaw Circuit Court BRITTANEY
More informationNo 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