USA v. Jonathan Jacome
| JONATHAN JACOME |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| 20-2350 |
| July 9, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 9, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 ECF FILER: Motion filed by Appellee USA to dismiss the appeal based on appellate waiver and to stay briefing schedule. Certificate of Service dated 07/09/2020. Service made by ECF, US mail. [19-3392, 20-2217, 20-2350]--[Edited 07/09/2020 by CJG] (SAC) [Entered: 07/09/2020 10:57 AM] |
| Filing 3 CLERK ORDER The actions at Nos. 19-3392, 20-2217, and 20-2350 are hereby consolidated for all purposes. Appeal Nos. 19-3392 and 20-2217 will not be submitted for dismissal at this time. The parties should address jurisdiction in their briefs, if the cases proceed to briefing. Appellant's pro se motion in 19-3392 to remove appointed counsel, Joseph J. Yeager, Esq., is granted. As Appellant's June 29, 2020 response in No. 20-2217 indicated that Appellant would like the Court to appoint counsel to represent him on appeal, the Clerk will locate and appoint new counsel to represent Appellant under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act. Once new counsel has been appointed, prior counsel, Joseph J. Yeager, Esq., will be directed to forward the file to new counsel. To the extent the motion to remove appointed counsel was construed as a motion to proceed pro se, the motion is dismissed as moot based on Appellant's June 29, 2020 response. Because Appellant already qualified for counsel appointment under the Criminal Justice Act, no action will be taken on the CJA Form 23 forwarded to this Court on June 19, 2020. Action on Appellee's motion to dismiss No. 20-2217 and Appellant's pro se response is deferred pending the appointment of new counsel. Appellant's pro se response to the motion to dismiss will be forwarded to counsel once he/she is appointed for whatever action counsel deems appropriate. The deadline for Appellant's counsel to respond to the motion to dismiss will be set once counsel has been appointed and has had a chance to review the record. If the government intends to file a motion to enforce appellate waiver in Nos. 19-3392 and 20-2350, it should do so before new counsel's review period expires. Appellee's request to stay briefing is denied as unnecessary as a briefing schedule has not been issued in these appeals. [19-3392, 20-2217, 20-2350] (CJG) [Entered: 07/09/2020 08:44 AM] |
| Filing 2 RECORD available on District Court CM/ECF. (CJG) [Entered: 07/09/2020 08:38 AM] |
| Filing 1 CRIMINAL CASE DOCKETED. Notice filed by Jonathan Jacome in District Court No. 3-17-cr-00205-001. (CJG) [Entered: 07/09/2020 08:33 AM] |
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.
| Search for this case: USA v. Jonathan Jacome | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant / appellant: JONATHAN JACOME | |
| Represented By: | Jonathan Jacome |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff / appellee: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | |
| Represented By: | Sean A. Camoni Esq. |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
