USA v. Roy Burns
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| ROY BURNS |
| 14-13929 |
| August 29, 2014 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 7, 2015. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Mandate issued as to Appellant Roy Burns. [Entered: 05/07/2015 09:58 AM] |
ORDER: The "Motion for Reconsideration," construed as a petition for panel rehearing, filed by Appellant Roy Burns is DENIED. [7456217-1] [Entered: 04/29/2015 02:49 PM]
|
| "Motion for Reconsideration," construed as a petition for panel rehearing, filed by Appellant Roy Burns. [Entered: 04/09/2015 01:03 PM] |
| Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Roy Burns. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. [Entered: 03/19/2015 07:45 AM] |
| Judgment entered as to Appellant Roy Burns. [Entered: 03/19/2015 07:40 AM] |
| Reply Brief filed by Appellant Roy Burns. Service 12/01/2014 US mail - Attorney for Appellee: Stuchell. [Entered: 12/08/2014 09:07 AM] |
| Corrected Supplemental Appendix [1 VOLUMES] filed by Appellee USA.--[Edited 12/10/2014 by MLS] (ECF: James Stuchell) [Entered: 12/02/2014 03:25 PM] |
| Supplemental Authority filed by Appellant Roy Burns. Service date: 11/17/2014 by U.S. mail to Attorney for Appellee. [Entered: 11/25/2014 11:00 AM] |
| Notice of deficient Appellee appendix filed by Attorney James C. Stuchell for Appellee USA. Deficiencies: order/judgment appealed. [Entered: 11/21/2014 08:43 AM] |
| Received paper copies of EAppendix filed by Appellee USA. 1 VOLUMES - 2 SETS [Entered: 11/21/2014 08:27 AM] |
| Paper Copies of Corrected Supplemental Appendix received on (12/03/2014) filed by Appellee USA. 1 VOLUMES - 3 SETS--[Edited 12/08/2014 by MM]--[Edited 12/10/2014 by MLS] [Entered: 12/04/2014 03:25 PM] |
| Received paper copies of EBrief filed by Appellee USA. [Entered: 11/20/2014 09:09 AM] |
| Supplemental Appendix [1 VOLUMES] filed by Appellee USA.--[Edited 12/10/2014 by MLS] (ECF: James Stuchell) [Entered: 11/17/2014 01:18 PM] |
| Appellee's Brief filed by Appellee USA. (ECF: James Stuchell) [Entered: 11/14/2014 09:15 AM] |
| APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by James C. Stuchell, for USA (ECF: James Stuchell) [Entered: 10/28/2014 09:12 AM] |
| Added Attorney James C. Stuchell for Appellee USA, in case 14-13929. [Entered: 10/28/2014 12:26 PM] |
| Public Communication: The appellant's motion to proceed IFP is being returned to him unfiled because it is unnecessary. He already has IFP status. [Entered: 10/23/2014 09:45 AM] |
| Public Communication: A notice is being sent to the parties to notify them that the appellee's brief is due on November 14th, which is 30 days from the date that the appellant's brief was electronically filed in the clerk's office. [Entered: 10/17/2014 03:22 PM] |
| Notice of deficient Appellant brief filed by Party Roy Burns.Deficiencies: certificate of service. [Entered: 10/15/2014 08:08 AM] |
| Appellant's brief filed by Roy Burns. Service date: 10/02/2014 [14-13929] Attorney for Appellee: Tanner - US mail. [Entered: 10/15/2014 08:06 AM] |
| Corrections to brief received on 10/24/2014 from Appellant Roy Burns. All deficiencies have been corrected. [Entered: 10/24/2014 02:19 PM] |
| APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by R. Brian Tanner for USA. (ECF: R. Tanner) [Entered: 09/05/2014 02:44 PM] |
| E-filed Appearance of Counsel processed for Attorney R. Brian Tanner for Appellee USA in 14-13929. [Entered: 09/05/2014 03:00 PM] |
| CRIMINAL APPEAL DOCKETED. Notice of appeal filed by Appellant Roy Burns on 08/27/2014. Fee Status: IFP Granted. Appellant brief due 40 days from 08/29/2014. [Entered: 09/03/2014 12:57 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
