IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

Similar documents
[ORAL ARGUMENT HELD ON APRIL 15, 2016] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. Defendants-Appellees.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 15, 2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Leave to file reply brief of up to 10,500 words.

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED Nos (L), (con.), (con.), (con.)

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 07/19/2011 Page 1 of 8 [NOT SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] No

Case 1:13-cv MMS Document 393 Filed 11/09/17 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS JOINT MOTION TO ADOPT QUICK PEEK ORDER

[NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] 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

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. DAVID JACOBS; GARY HINDES, Appellants,

Case 1:13-cv MMS Document 218 Filed 08/03/15 Page 1 of 7 Redacted Version IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

[ORAL ARGUMENT HELD APRIL 12, 2016] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 1:13-cv RCL Document 89 Filed 10/29/18 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case: , 11/17/2017, ID: , DktEntry: 36, Page 1 of 12 No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

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

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. Appellants-Cross-Appellees. Nos , ,

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOTION OF AMERICAN CABLE ASSOCIATION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

No ORAL ARGUMENT HELD JUNE 1, 2015 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT DEFEENDANT-APPELLEE S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

In The United States Court of Appeals For the Third Circuit

ORU l;~]i ^i^totestodhhfw^

[ORAL ARGUMENT NOT SCHEDULED] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT : : : : MOTION TO GOVERN

Case 2:17-cv WB Document 97 Filed 12/26/18 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. DIVISION [Number]

[ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 15, 2010] 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

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Petitioners, Real Parties in Interest.

[ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED ON FEBRUARY 16, 2012] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 1:13-cv RCL Document 77 Filed 03/02/18 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case: Document: 16 Filed: 04/23/2012 Pages: 6. Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

UNITED STATE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No Plaintiffs-Appellees,

Case 4:17-cv JM Document 58 Filed 05/04/18 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION

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

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 09/09/2011 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN RE TELES AG,

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

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

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case: Document: 16 Filed: 12/02/2016 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. Filed: December 02, 2016

ORIGINAL RECEIVED 2 Z015 ) ) ) ) ) ) PETITION FOR ) REVIEW ) ) ) No DEC FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA C

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: , 08/14/2017, ID: , DktEntry: 46-1, Page 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No (and consolidated cases) 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

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. Petitioner v. CHANBOND, LLC Patent Owner

Case: 1:10-cv Document #: 52 Filed: 11/12/10 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:725

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

Case 1:13-cv BB Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/18/2016 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION

Case 1:13-cv WMS Document 54 Filed 05/24/13 Page 1 of 4 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE AND PISTOL

Plaintiffs-Appellants, Docket Nos (L), 445(Con) DECLARATION OF SARAH S. NORMAND. SARAH S. NORMAND, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1746, declares as

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

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

Cooper & Kirk, PLLC 1523 New Hampshire Avenue, NW Washington, DC Hon. William M. Skretny, Western District of New York

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case 2:17-cv JLR Document 179 Filed 04/07/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CALVERT COUNTY, MARYLAND

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JEFFREY ALEXANDER STERLING, and JAMES RISEN,

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

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

Case 2:16-cv SWS Document 218 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 4

Rule Change #1998(14)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT MOTION TO INTERVENE IN PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. ROSALINA CUELLAR DE OSORIO; et al.

CASE NOS , -1307, -1309, -1310, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Amended by Order dated June 21, 2013; effective July 1, RULES OF SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA PART FIVE THE SUPREME COURT B. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. No. LIGHTING BALLAST CONTROL LLC, Applicant, v. UNIVERSAL LIGHTING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Respondent.

Case 4:17-cv HSG Document 181 Filed 12/26/18 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 2, No (and consolidated cases) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 09/09/2014 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 5:10-cv C Document 66 Filed 07/11/11 Page 1 of 14 PageID 869

Case 1:13-cv KBJ Document 46 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Nos , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. PARKERVISION, INC., a Florida corporation,

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

ORAL ARGUMENT HELD ON MARCH 31, Case No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Tel: (202)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION [NUMBER]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

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

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

Transcription:

Case: 17-104 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 11/02/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT In re UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner. No. 2017-104 [Fed. Cl. No. 13-465C] OPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS For the reasons set forth in the attached declaration, the United States respectfully requests an extension of three days, up to and including November 9, to file its reply in support of its petition for writ of mandamus, which was docketed by this Court on October 27, 2016. Respectfully submitted, MARK B. STERN /s Abby C. Wright (202) 514-0718 Attorneys Appellate Staff, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Attorneys for the United States

Case: 17-104 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 11/02/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT In re UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner. No. 2017-104 [Fed. Cl. No. 13-465C] DECLARATION OF COUNSEL I, Abby C. Wright, hereby declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney with the Appellate Staff of the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. I, along with Mark Stern and Gerry Sinzdak, have been assigned responsibility for the preparation and filing of the government s reply in support of its petition for writ of mandamus. For the reasons set out below, the government respectfully requests a three-day extension of time, to and including November 9, 2016, to file its reply. 2. By order of this Court on October 27, 2016, respondents were given seven days to file a response to the government s petition for writ of mandamus. That response is currently due November 3. The Court s order gives the government three days in which to file a reply in support of its petition for writ of mandamus. The reply

Case: 17-104 Document: 17 Page: 3 Filed: 11/02/2016 is therefore currently due Monday, November 7. The government has not requested any other extensions of time. 3. The extension is necessary in light of other litigation matters and the necessity of review by various government components and agencies. Specifically, Mark Stern is presenting oral argument in this Court on November 4, 2016, in Starr Int l Co. v. United States, Nos. 2015-5103, -5133. And because the filing of the mandamus reply will require extensive coordination among various components of the Department of Justice, the Treasury Department, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the government requires additional time to prepare its reply. 4. Given the extremely short timeframe for the filing of the response and reply in this mandamus proceeding, the government was unable to file its extension motion within the seven-day requirement of Federal Circuit Rule 26(b)(1). 5. We have contacted counsel for respondents, and they have indicated that respondents oppose this extension motion, but will not file a separate opposition. Counsel asked the government to include the following in this motion: Plaintiffs object to the requested extension because of the need for very prompt resolution of the petition. 6. For the foregoing reasons, good cause exists for extending the deadline for the government s reply by three days, to and including November 9, 2016.

Case: 17-104 Document: 17 Page: 4 Filed: 11/02/2016 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 1, 2016. See 28 U.S.C. 1746(2). s/ Abby C. Wright Abby C. Wright (202) 514-0664 Attorney, Appellate Staff Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530

Case: 17-104 Document: 17 Page: 5 Filed: 11/02/2016 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 2, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system. Service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system: Charles J. Cooper Vincent J. Colatriano David H. Thompson Peter A. Patterson Brian W. Barnes Cooper & Kirk, PLLC 1523 New Hampshire, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 220-9600 Service was accomplished on the following by First Class U.S. Mail: Michael Sammons 15706 Seekers St. San Antonio, TX 78255 s/ Abby C. Wright