USA v. Brandon Jones
| BRANDON JONES |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| 19-10129 |
| April 10, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 24, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 Filed Appellant Brandon Jones motion entitled "Motion to execution of stay re: transcripts. Deficiencies: No certificate of service. [11313646] (RR) [Entered: 05/30/2019 12:47 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed Appellant Brandon Jones motion entitled "Motion to Extend, CJA Panel Refuse to send transcript". Deficiencies: No certificate of service. [11313639] (RR) [Entered: 05/30/2019 12:44 PM] |
| Filing 4 ENTRY UPDATED. Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: DL): On April 22, 2019, the court ordered appellant, within 21 days, to move for voluntary dismissal of the appeal or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant was warned that failure to comply with the April 22, 2019, order may result in the dismissal of the appeal for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. To date, appellant has not complied with the courts order. Appellant shall have one final opportunity to respond. Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant shall file the response required by this courts April 22, 2019, order. Appellee may respond within 10 days after service of appellants memorandum. Failure to respond timely to this order will result in the automatic dismissal of the appeal by the Clerk for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1; Gen Order 2.3. The Clerk shall serve this order and the April 22, 2019, order on appellant individually at Reg. No. 49935-048, FCI Tucson, Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 23811, Tucson, AZ 85734. (COURT UPDATE: To reflect the correct order text; resend nda) [11298335] (WL) [Entered: 05/15/2019 11:25 AM] |
| Filing 3 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: DL): A review of the record suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over the appeal because the district courts April 2, 2019, minute order, denying the motion for new counsel is not appealable as a final judgment or an order that comes within the collateral order doctrine. See 28 U.S.C. 1291; Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 798 (1989) (stating that finality requirement generally prohibits appellate review until after conviction and imposition of sentence). Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant shall move for voluntary dismissal of the appeal or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellant elects to show cause, a response may be filed within 10 days after service of the memorandum. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the automatic dismissal of this appeal by the Clerk for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. Briefing is suspended pending further order of the court. The Clerk shall serve this order on appellant individually at UMA No. 551, Santa Rita County Jail, 5325 Broder Boulevard, Dublin, CA 94568. [11271588] (WL) [Entered: 04/22/2019 09:49 AM] |
| Filing 2 Terminated Nathaniel Joseph Torres, Esq., as counsel of record for Brandon Jones in 19-10129. (prose interlocutory appeal) [11271525] (DL) [Entered: 04/22/2019 09:30 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. Reporters Transcript required: Yes. Sentence imposed: n/a. Transcript ordered by 04/29/2019. Transcript due 05/29/2019. Appellant briefs and excerpts due by 07/08/2019 for Brandon Jones. Appellee brief due 08/07/2019 for United States of America. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. (Appeal filed Pro Se, Counsel still appointed) [11258860] (HC) [Entered: 04/10/2019 09:31 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.
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.
