USA v. Clifton Howard, III
Defendant / Appellant: CLIFTON ELIAS HOWARD III, AKA Clifton Howard
Plaintiff / Appellee: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Case Number: 19-16210
Filed: June 14, 2019
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit: Other
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on July 22, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
July 22, 2019 Filing 6 Filed order (SANDRA S. IKUTA and N. RANDY SMITH) This appeal is from the district courts May 8, 2019, order, which resolved appellants pro se motions for reconsideration arising from the denial of his first 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, including appellants contentions that he has been erroneously denied a certificate of appealability by the district court and this court. Appellants second, authorized section 2255 motion remains pending in the district court and is not the subject of this appeal. The request for a certificate of appealability (Docket Entry No. [ # 3 ]) is denied because appellant has not shown that (1) jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion and, (2) jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the underlying section 2255 motion states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right. United States v. Winkles, 795 F.3d 1134, 1143 (9th Cir. 2015), cert. denied 136 S. Ct. 2462 (2016); see also 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Any pending motions are denied as moot. DENIED.[11372135] (JBS) [Entered: 07/22/2019 03:16 PM]
July 10, 2019 Filing 5 Terminated Yasin M. Almadani for USA in 19-16210, Dawrence Wayne Rice Jr. for USA in 19-16210 [11359645] (CW) [Entered: 07/10/2019 02:43 PM]
July 10, 2019 Filing 4 Filed (ECF) Notice of withdrawal of counsel. Filed by Mr. Yasin M. Almadani for Appellee USA and Mr. Dawrence Wayne Rice, Jr., Esquire for Appellee USA. Party proceeding without counsel: No. Date of service: 07/10/2019. [11359587] [19-16210] (Servatius, Kathleen) [Entered: 07/10/2019 02:21 PM]
July 8, 2019 Filing 3 Filed Appellant Clifton Elias Howard, III pro se motion for certificate of appealability. Served on 07/03/2019. Deficiency: party has counsel. [11357334] (CW) [Entered: 07/09/2019 07:20 AM]
June 19, 2019 Filing 2 Criminal Justice Act electronic voucher created. (Counsel: Ms. Katherine L. Hart for Clifton Elias Howard, III) [11337421] (TG) [Entered: 06/19/2019 01:31 PM]
June 14, 2019 Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket. No COA order in district court. Record on appeal included: Yes. (Appeal filed Pro Se, Counsel still appointed) [11332675] (HC) [Entered: 06/14/2019 04:52 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. Clifton Howard, III
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant / appellant: CLIFTON ELIAS HOWARD III, AKA Clifton Howard
Represented By: Katherine L. Hart
Represented By: Clifton Elias Howard III
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: Dawrence Wayne Rice Esquire Jr.
Represented By: Kathleen Anne Servatius
Represented By: Yasin M. Almadani
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?