USA v. Ammon Bundy
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| AMMON BUNDY |
| 16-30179 |
| August 2, 2016 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 3, 2016. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 MANDATE ISSUED. (KMW, CMC and NRS) [10184953] (RL) [Entered: 11/03/2016 11:47 AM] |
| Filing 10 Filed order (KIM MCLANE WARDLAW, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN and N. RANDY SMITH) Appellants petition for rehearing en banc is construed as a motion for reconsideration en banc of the courts September 28, 2016 order. See 9th Cir. Gen. Ord. 6.11. So construed, the motion is denied on behalf of the court (Docket Entry No. [ # 9 ]). Id. No further filings will be entertained in this closed case. [10173431] (OC) [Entered: 10/25/2016 03:36 PM] |
| Filing 9 Filed (ECF) Appellant Ammon Bundy petition for rehearing en banc (from 09/28/2016 opinion). Date of service: 10/12/2016. [10157525] [16-30179] (Mumford, Marcus) [Entered: 10/13/2016 04:19 AM] |
| Filing 8 Filed order (KIM MCLANE WARDLAW, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN and N. RANDY SMITH) This is an appeal from the district courts pretrial detention order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3145(c) and 28 U.S.C. 1291. We review the district courts factual findings concerning the danger that appellant poses to the community under a deferential, clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Hir, 517 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Townsend, 897 F.2d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 1990)). The conclusions based on such factual findings, however, present a mixed question of fact and law. Hir, 517 F.3d at 1086. Thus, the question of whether the district courts factual determinations justify the pretrial detention order is reviewed de novo. Id. at 1086-87 (citations omitted). The district court correctly found that the government has met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the [defendants] appearance. 18 U.S.C. 3142(e); see also United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403, 1406 (9th Cir. 1985). The district court also correctly determined that the government has met its burden of showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure . . . the safety of . . . the community, 18 U.S.C. 3142(e), and that appellant therefore poses a danger to the community. See Hir, 517 F.3d at 1094. We therefore affirm the district courts pretrial detention order. AFFIRMED. [10141006] (HC) [Entered: 09/28/2016 03:42 PM] |
| Filing 7 Received notification from District Court re: payment of docket fee. Amount Paid: USD 505.00. Date paid: 08/16/2016. [10129536] (RT) [Entered: 09/20/2016 11:59 AM] |
| Filing 6 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: SMR): A review of this courts docket reflects that the filing and docketing fees for this appeal remain due. Within 7 days after the date of this order, appellant shall pay to the district court the $505.00 filing and docketing fees for this appeal and file in this court proof of such payment or file in this court a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Failure to pay the fees or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis may result in the dismissal of the appeal for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. The Clerk shall serve a Form CJA 23 on appellant. [10123372] (AF) [Entered: 09/14/2016 01:09 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed (ECF) Appellant Ammon Bundy reply to response to FRAP 9(a) memorandum. Date of service: 09/01/2016. [10109226] [16-30179] (Mumford, Marcus) [Entered: 09/01/2016 12:37 AM] |
| Filing 4 Filed (ECF) Appellee USA response to FRAP 9(a) memorandum. Date of service: 08/24/2016. [10099014] [16-30179] (Zusman, Kelly) [Entered: 08/24/2016 12:44 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed (ECF) Appellant Ammon Bundy FRAP 9(a) memorandum. Date of service: 08/16/2016. [10087927] [16-30179] (Mumford, Marcus) [Entered: 08/16/2016 02:12 AM] |
| Filing 2 Filed (ECF) Appellant Ammon Bundy Motion for bail pending Trial. Date of service: 08/15/2016. [10087923] [16-30179] (Mumford, Marcus) [Entered: 08/15/2016 11:59 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. Memorandum/Motion re: 9th Circuit Rule 9-1.1(a) due 08/15/2016 for Appellant Ammon Bundy. The Response shall be filed within 10 days of service of the 9a Memo/Motion. The Optional Reply may be filed within 7 days of service of the Response. See 9th Cir. R. 9-1.1. Contacted counsel re: Informed of rule & time limits & docket number. [10072230] (HC) [Entered: 08/02/2016 10:29 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. Ammon Bundy | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff / appellee: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | |
| Represented By: | Ethan D. Knight |
| Represented By: | Geoffrey A. Barrow |
| Represented By: | Craig Gabriel |
| Represented By: | Kelly A. Zusman |
| 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 ] |
| Defendant / appellant: AMMON BUNDY | |
| Represented By: | Marcus R. Mumford Esquire |
| 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.
