USA v. Ronald Brekke
| RONALD L BREKKE |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| 21-35180 |
| March 9, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Vacate Sentence |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 8, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 Filed Appellant Ronald L Brekke objection to order request for proper en banc rehearing. Deficiencies: No further filings per 06/17/21 order. Served on 07/01/2021. (Sent copy of 06/17/21 order & docket sheet) [12166877] (RL) [Entered: 07/08/2021 02:09 PM] |
| Filing 11 Filed Appellant Ronald L Brekke request to expand the record. Deficiencies: None. Served on 05/18/2021. [12150442]--[COURT UPDATE: Attached correct PDF of motion. 06/22/2021 by SLM] (RL) [Entered: 06/22/2021 09:46 AM] |
| Filing 10 Filed order (WILLIAM C. CANBY and KENNETH K. LEE) Appellants motion for reconsideration en banc (Docket Entry No. [ # 9 ]) is denied on behalf of the court. See 9th Cir. R. 27-10; 9th Cir. Gen. Ord. 6.11. No further filings will be entertained in this closed case. [12147836] (JBS) [Entered: 06/17/2021 04:31 PM] |
| Filing 9 Filed Appellant Ronald L Brekke motion for reconsideration (document titled: petition for rehearing en banc) . Deficiencies: None. Served on 05/26/2021. [12131907] (RL) [Entered: 06/02/2021 04:32 PM] |
| Filing 8 Filed Appellant Ronald L Brekke request to expand the record. Deficiencies: Case closed. Served on 05/18/2021. [12123545] (RL) [Entered: 05/25/2021 10:25 AM] |
| Filing 7 Filed order (RICHARD A. PAEZ and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN) The request for a certificate of appealability is denied because appellant has not shown that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the [motion] states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2); Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012); Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530-31 (2005); Ortiz v. Stewart, 195 F.3d 520, 520-21 (9th Cir. 1999); United States v. Winkles, 795 F.3d 1134, 1143 (9th Cir. 2015). Any pending motions are denied as moot. DENIED. [12113892] (JMR) [Entered: 05/14/2021 03:35 PM] |
| Filing 6 Filed original and 0 copies of Appellant Ronald L Brekke errata to opening brief [ # 4 ]. Served via ECF on 4/30/2021. [12097823] (SML) [Entered: 04/30/2021 09:32 AM] |
| Filing 5 Filed Appellant Ronald L Brekke letter dated 04/18/2021 re: Representation statement; certificate of interested persons. Paper filing deficiency: None. [12082772] (RL) [Entered: 04/21/2021 04:34 PM] |
| Filing 4 Received original and 0 copies of Appellant Ronald L Brekke opening brief of 34 pages (Informal: No). Served on 04/15/2021. Major deficiency: no briefing schedule. [12080263] (KWG) [Entered: 04/20/2021 09:34 AM] |
| Filing 3 Received copy of District Court order filed on 03/29/2021 declining to issue a certificate of appealability. [12057457] (QDL) [Entered: 03/29/2021 09:18 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed order (Interim Appellate Commissioner): The district court has not issued or declined to issue a certificate of appealability in this appeal of the district courts orders entered on January 20, 2021, and February 23, 2021, which appears to arise under 28 U.S.C. 2255. See Porter v. Adams, 244 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2001) (certificate of appealability required where 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition attacks conviction or sentence, even if it was not construed as section 2255 motion by district court). Accordingly, this case is remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability at the courts earliest convenience. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). If the district court issues a certificate of appealability, the court should specify which issue or issues meet the required showing. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(3); Asrar, 116 F.3d at 1270. Under Asrar, if the district court declines to issue a certificate, the court should state its reasons why a certificate of appealability should not be granted, and the Clerk of the district court is requested to forward to this court the record with the order denying the certificate. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1); Asrar, 116 F.3d at 1270. The Clerk will send a copy of this order to the district court judge. (Pro Se) [12052832] (CKP) [Entered: 03/25/2021 08:59 AM] |
| Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket. No COA order in district court. Record on appeal included: Yes. [12029419] (OC) [Entered: 03/09/2021 12:31 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. Ronald Brekke | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant / appellant: RONALD L BREKKE | |
| Represented By: | Ronald L. Brekke |
| 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: | Thomas Merton Woods Esquire |
| Represented By: | Francis Franze-Nakamura Esquire |
| 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.
