USA v. Sammy Dewitt Morgan
| SAMMY DAVIS DEWITT MORGAN |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| 20-10150 |
| May 5, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 6, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 Filed Appellant Sammy Davis Dewitt Morgan notice of motion and motion to appeal supervised release special conditions. Deficiencies: None. Served on 04/27/2020. [11682367] (RL) [Entered: 05/06/2020 12:00 PM] |
| Filing 5 Attorney Timothy H. Delgado substituted by Attorney Camil Skipper. [11682223] (RL) [Entered: 05/06/2020 11:04 AM] |
| Filing 4 Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Camil A. Skipper (U.S. Attorney's Office, 501 I Street, Suite 10-100, Sacramento, CA, 95814) for Appellee USA. Substitution for Attorney Timothy H. Delgado for Appellee USA. Date of service: 05/06/2020. (Party was previously proceeding with counsel.) [11682215] [20-10150] (Skipper, Camil) [Entered: 05/06/2020 10:59 AM] |
| Filing 3 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: MM): On April 28, 2020, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal from the judgment entered by the district court on October 24, 2019. Because the notice of appeal was not filed within 14 days after entry of the judgment, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A), or within the additional 30 days provided in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(4), this appeal appears to be untimely. Within 60 days of this order, appellant must file a motion for voluntary dismissal of this appeal or show cause in writing why it should not be dismissed for lack of a timely notice of appeal. If appellant elects to show cause, appellee may respond within 10 days after service of appellants memorandum. If appellant does not comply with this order, the court may dismiss this appeal for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. Briefing is suspended pending further order of the court. [11682100] (OC) [Entered: 05/06/2020 10:08 AM] |
| Filing 2 Terminated Kelly Babineau, Esq., as counsel of record for Sammy Davis Dewitt Morgan in 20-10150. (prose untimely NOA) [11681634] (DL) [Entered: 05/05/2020 04:42 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. Reporters Transcript required: Yes. Sentence imposed: 153 Months. Transcript ordered by 05/26/2020. Transcript due 06/24/2020. Appellant briefs and excerpts due by 08/03/2020 for Sammy Davis Dewitt Morgan. Appellee brief due 09/02/2020 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). [11681422] (JPD) [Entered: 05/05/2020 03:18 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. Sammy Dewitt Morgan | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant / appellant: SAMMY DAVIS DEWITT MORGAN | |
| Represented By: | Sammy Davis Dewitt Morgan |
| 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: | Camil Skipper |
| 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.
