USA v. Twenty-Three Firearms
| TWENTY-THREE FIREARMS |
| ELIZABETH JUNE HOWARD |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| 21-15306 |
| February 22, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 26, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Filed Appellant Elizabeth June Howard letter dated re: I would like to know if any portion of my Docketing Fee is refundable.. Paper filing deficiency: None. [12054652] (JFF) [Entered: 03/26/2021 12:21 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed order (MILAN D. SMITH, JR., BRIDGET S. BADE and PATRICK J. BUMATAY): A review of the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the order challenged in the appeal is not final or appealable. See 28 U.S.C. 1291; see also Branson v. City of Los Angeles, 912 F.2d 334, 336 (9th Cir. 1990) (denial of reconsideration of non-appealable order is itself not appealable). Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED. [12035145] (AF) [Entered: 03/11/2021 06:06 PM] |
| Filing 2 Received notification from District Court re: payment of docket fee. Amount Paid: USD 505.00. Date paid: 03/05/2021. [12028377] (RT) [Entered: 03/08/2021 04:53 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Elizabeth June Howard opening brief due 04/23/2021. Appellee United States of America answering brief due 05/24/2021. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12011220] (RT) [Entered: 02/22/2021 10:06 AM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
