USA v. Kyle Thompson

USA v. Kyle Thompson

Defendant / Appellant:	KYLE MATTHEW THOMPSON
Plaintiff / Appellee:	UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Case Number:	19-10301
Filed:	September 3, 2019
Court:	U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit:	Other

RSS Track this Docket

Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on September 4, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed	Document Text
September 4, 2019	Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: DL): Court records show that counsel Mark A. Paige, Esq., was appointed under the Criminal Justice Act to represent appellant before the district court. It appears that counsel has not been granted leave to withdraw by the district court or this court. Accordingly, the Clerk has entered Mark A. Paige, Esq., 2733 N. Power Rd., Suite 102, Mesa, AZ 85215, (602) 514-7517, on the docket as appointed counsel of record. See 9th Cir. R. 4-1(a). Counsel has the duty to continue to represent the appellant on appeal until counsel is relieved by this court. See id. Therefore, even though the appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal, counsel Paige remains responsible for prosecuting this appeal. Appellants motion for appointment of counsel, contained within the notice of appeal, is unnecessary. A review of the record suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over the appeal because the district courts order denying appellants motion to dismiss the indictment 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. See 9th Cir. R. 27-9.1. If appellant elects to show cause, a response may be filed within 10 days after service of the memorandum. Briefing is suspended pending further order of the court. 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. The Clerk shall serve this order on counsel Paige, who shall serve a copy of this order on appellant and provide proof of service to this court showing appellants address and registration number within 21 days of this order. (COURT UPDATE: To reflect the content of the order; Resend NDA) [11421141] (AF) [Entered: 09/04/2019 03:38 PM]
September 3, 2019	Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. Reporters Transcript required: Yes. Sentence imposed: N/A. Transcript ordered by 09/24/2019. Transcript due 10/24/2019. Appellant briefs and excerpts due by 12/03/2019 for Kyle Matthew Thompson. Appellee brief due 01/02/2020 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) [11419250] (JMR) [Entered: 09/03/2019 03:39 PM]

Date Filed

Document Text

September 4, 2019

Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: DL): Court records show that counsel Mark A. Paige, Esq., was appointed under the Criminal Justice Act to represent appellant before the district court. It appears that counsel has not been granted leave to withdraw by the district court or this court. Accordingly, the Clerk has entered Mark A. Paige, Esq., 2733 N. Power Rd., Suite 102, Mesa, AZ 85215, (602) 514-7517, on the docket as appointed counsel of record. See 9th Cir. R. 4-1(a). Counsel has the duty to continue to represent the appellant on appeal until counsel is relieved by this court. See id. Therefore, even though the appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal, counsel Paige remains responsible for prosecuting this appeal. Appellants motion for appointment of counsel, contained within the notice of appeal, is unnecessary. A review of the record suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over the appeal because the district courts order denying appellants motion to dismiss the indictment 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. See 9th Cir. R. 27-9.1. If appellant elects to show cause, a response may be filed within 10 days after service of the memorandum. Briefing is suspended pending further order of the court. 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. The Clerk shall serve this order on counsel Paige, who shall serve a copy of this order on appellant and provide proof of service to this court showing appellants address and registration number within 21 days of this order. (COURT UPDATE: To reflect the content of the order; Resend NDA) [11421141] (AF) [Entered: 09/04/2019 03:38 PM]

September 3, 2019

Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. Reporters Transcript required: Yes. Sentence imposed: N/A. Transcript ordered by 09/24/2019. Transcript due 10/24/2019. Appellant briefs and excerpts due by 12/03/2019 for Kyle Matthew Thompson. Appellee brief due 01/02/2020 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) [11419250] (JMR) [Entered: 09/03/2019 03:39 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.

Search for this case: USA v. Kyle Thompson
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant / appellant: KYLE MATTHEW THOMPSON
Represented By:	Mark Paige
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:	Gayle L. Helart
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.

Why Is My Information Online?