Martinez-Argueta v. Garland
KARINA MARTINEZ-ARGUETA and ROMEO NOLASCO-MARTINEZ |
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL |
22-720 |
April 18, 2022 |
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
Other |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on October 24, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 34 MEMORANDUM DISPOSITION (M. Margaret McKEOWN, Consuelo M. CALLAHAN, Kenneth K. LEE) PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [Entered: 10/24/2023 10:35 AM] |
Filing 33 SUBMITTED ON THE BRIEFS to M. Margaret McKEOWN, Consuelo M. CALLAHAN, Kenneth K. LEE. [Entered: 10/05/2023 09:24 AM] |
Filing 32 ORDER FILED. The court is of the unanimous opinion that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record, and that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Therefore, this case is ordered submitted on the briefs and record, without oral argument, on October 3, 2023, in San Francisco, California. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). [Entered: 08/25/2023 09:58 AM] |
Filing 31 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT on Tuesday, October 3, 2023 - 09:00 A.M. - Courtroom 1 - Scheduled Location: San Francisco CA View the Oral Argument Calendar for your case #here. NOTE: Although your case is currently scheduled for oral argument, the panel may decide to submit the case on the briefs instead. See Fed. R. App. P. 34. Absent further order of the court, if the court does determine that oral argument is required in this case, you may appear in person at the Courthouse or remotely by video. At this time, even when in person hearings resume, an election to appear remotely by video will not require a motion, and any attorney wishing to appear in person must provide proof of vaccination. If the panel determines that it will hold oral argument in your case, the Clerk's Office will contact you at least two weeks before the argument date to review any requirements for in person appearance or to make any necessary arrangements for remote appearance. Please note however that if you wish to appear remotely by telephone you will need to file a motion requesting permission to do so. Be sure to review the #GUIDELINES for important information about your hearing. If you are the specific attorney or self-represented party who will be arguing, use the ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING NOTICE filing type in ACMS no later than 28 days before the hearing date. No form or other attachment is required. If you will not be arguing, do not file an acknowledgment of hearing notice. [22-720] [Entered: 07/24/2023 06:01 PM] |
Filing 30 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT on Wednesday, October 3, 2023 - 09:00 A.M. - Courtroom 1 - Scheduled Location: San Francisco CA View the Oral Argument Calendar for your case #here. NOTE: Although your case is currently scheduled for oral argument, the panel may decide to submit the case on the briefs instead. See Fed. R. App. P. 34. Absent further order of the court, if the court does determine that oral argument is required in this case, you may appear in person at the Courthouse or remotely by video. At this time, even when in person hearings resume, an election to appear remotely by video will not require a motion, and any attorney wishing to appear in person must provide proof of vaccination. If the panel determines that it will hold oral argument in your case, the Clerk's Office will contact you at least two weeks before the argument date to review any requirements for in person appearance or to make any necessary arrangements for remote appearance. Please note however that if you wish to appear remotely by telephone you will need to file a motion requesting permission to do so. Be sure to review the #GUIDELINES for important information about your hearing. If you are the specific attorney or self-represented party who will be arguing, use the ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING NOTICE filing type in ACMS no later than 28 days before the hearing date. No form or other attachment is required. If you will not be arguing, do not file an acknowledgment of hearing notice. [22-720] [Entered: 07/24/2023 03:49 PM] |
Filing 29 NOTICE: This case is being considered for an upcoming oral argument calendar in San Francisco. Please review the San Francisco sitting dates for October 2023 and the 2 subsequent sitting months in that location at #http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/court_sessions. If you have an unavoidable conflict on either of the dates, please file Form 32 (#http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/forms/form32.pdf) within 3 business days of this notice using the ACMS filing type Response to Case Being Considered for Oral Argument. Please follow the form's instructions (#http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/forms/form32instructions.pdf) carefully. When setting your argument date, the court will try to work around unavoidable conflicts; the court is not able to accommodate mere scheduling preferences. You will receive notice that your case has been assigned to a calendar approximately 10 weeks before the scheduled oral argument date. If the parties wish to discuss settlement before an argument date is set, they should jointly request referral to the mediation unit by filing a motion within 3 business days of this notice, using the filing type: Motion to Refer to Mediation. [22-720] [Entered: 06/22/2023 01:21 PM] |
Filing 28 Paper copies (6) of Answering Brief submitted at DE 26 by Respondent Merrick B. Garland received 02/03/2023. [Entered: 02/06/2023 09:47 AM] |
Filing 27 ORDER FILED. Answering Brief submitted at DE 26 by Respondent Merrick B. Garland is filed. Within 7 days of this order, Respondent must file 6 copies of the brief in paper format bound with red front cover pages. Each copy must include certification at the end that the copy is identical to the electronic version. The paper copies must be sent to the Clerks principal office. [Entered: 01/30/2023 12:50 PM] |
Filing 26 ANSWERING BRIEF submitted for filing by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 01/27/2023 12:29 PM] |
Filing 25 ORDER FILED. Respondent's unopposed motion (Docket Entry No. 24) for an extension of time to file the answering brief is granted. The respondent's answering brief is due January 27, 2023. The optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. [Entered: 11/29/2022 10:38 AM] |
Filing 24 MOTION to extend time to file answering brief filed by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 11/28/2022 03:35 PM] |
Filing 23 TERMINATED participation of Counsel for Respondent Andrew Jacob Oliveira representing Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 10/24/2022 10:24 AM] [Edited: 10/24/2022 10:28 AM] |
Filing 22 ADDED Counsel for Respondent Brooke Maurer for Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 10/24/2022 10:22 AM] |
Filing 21 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Brooke Maurer for Merrick B. Garland replacing Andrew Jacob Oliveira. [Entered: 10/24/2022 10:18 AM] |
Filing 20 Paper copies (6) of Opening Brief submitted at DE 18 by Petitioners Karina Martinez-Argueta and Romeo Nolasco-Martinez received. [Entered: 09/30/2022 02:04:00 PM] |
Filing 19 ORDER FILED. Opening Brief submitted at DE 18 by Petitioners Karina Martinez-Argueta and Romeo Nolasco-Martinez is filed. Within 7 days of this order, Petitioners must file 6 copies of the brief in paper format bound with blue front cover pages. Each copy must include certification at the end that the copy is identical to the electronic version. The paper copies must be sent to the Clerks principal office. [Entered: 09/27/2022 03:00:00 PM] |
Filing 18 OPENING BRIEF submitted for filing by Petitioner Karina Martinez-Argueta, Petitioner Romeo Nolasco-Martinez. [Entered: 09/23/2022 05:53:00 PM]--[COURT UPDATE: Attached corrected PDF of brief] [Edited: 09/27/2022 02:57:00 PM] |
Filing 17 ORDER FILED. Before: Lisa B. Fitzgerald, Appellate Commissioner. Petitioners motion (Docket Entry No. 16) for an extension of time to file the opening brief is granted. The opening brief is due September 28, 2022. The answering brief is due November 28, 2022. The optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. The governments motion (Docket Entry No. 13) to dismiss for failure to prosecute is denied. [Entered: 08/30/2022 09:16:00 AM] |
Filing 16 MOTION to extend time to file opening brief filed by Petitioner Karina Martinez-Argueta, Petitioner Romeo Nolasco-Martinez. [Entered: 08/11/2022 03:13:00 PM] |
Filing 15 ORDER FILED. Streamlined Request for Extension of Time to File Opening Brief for 30 days (DE 14) denied. The request is late. The filer must file a motion per 9th Cir. R. 31-2.2(b). [Entered: 08/11/2022 11:01:00 AM] |
Filing 14 STREAMLINED request for extension of time to file opening brief for 30 days filed by Petitioner Karina Martinez-Argueta, Petitioner Romeo Nolasco-Martinez. [Entered: 08/11/2022 10:56:00 AM] |
Filing 13 MOTION to dismiss case for failure to prosecute filed by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 08/11/2022 08:41:00 AM] |
Filing 12 ORDER FILED. The government has filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion for stay of removal. The temporary stay of removal continues until the mandate issues unless the court orders otherwise.See 9th Cir. Gen. Ord. 6.4(c). [Entered: 06/01/2022 10:55:00 AM] |
Filing 11 STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY REMOVAL filed by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 06/01/2022 08:33:00 AM]--[COURT UPDATE: Attached corrected PDF of non-opposition.] [Edited: 06/01/2022 10:31:00 AM] |
Filing 10 CERTIFIED ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD filed. [Entered: 05/24/2022 09:02:00 AM] |
Filing 9 Motion to Stay Removal filed at DE 8; Respondent Response to Stay Motion (Filed after PFR) due 6/13/2022. [Entered: 05/17/2022 10:37:00 AM] |
Filing 8 MOTION TO STAY REMOVAL filed by Petitioner(s); REMOVAL STAYED pending further order of the court per General Order 6.4(c). [Entered: 05/17/2022 10:03:00 AM] |
Filing 7 ADDED Andrew Jacob Oliveira for Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 04/26/2022 09:12:00 AM] |
Filing 6 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Andrew Jacob Oliveira for Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 04/26/2022 08:01:00 AM] |
Filing 5 BRIEFING SCHEDULE NOTICE. Certified Administrative Record due 5/23/2022, Petitioner Opening Brief due 7/22/2022, Respondent Answering Brief due 9/20/2022. Optional Reply Brief due 21 days after service of Answering Brief. All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of the petitioner to comply with this briefing schedule will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. [Entered: 04/18/2022 02:08:00 PM] |
Filing 4 ADDED Petitioner Romeo Nolasco-Martinez, represented by Jonathan Roger Sturman Counsel for Petitioner. [Entered: 04/18/2022 02:01:00 PM] |
Filing 3 ADDED Petitioner Karina Martinez-Argueta, represented by Jonathan Roger Sturman Counsel for Petitioner. [Entered: 04/18/2022 01:59:00 PM] |
Filing 2 CASE OPENED. Petition for Review has been received in the Clerk's office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on 4/18/2022. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 22-720 has been assigned to this case. All communications with the court must indicate this Court of Appeals docket number. Please carefully review the docket to ensure the name(s) and contact information are correct. It is your responsibility to alert the court if your contact information changes. Resources Available For more information about case processing and to assist you in preparing your brief, please review the Case Opening Information (for #attorneys and #pro se litigants), review the #Appellate Practice Guide, and counsel for petitioner(s) should also review the #Immigration Outline and consider contacting the court's #Appellate Mentoring Program for help with the brief and argument. [Entered: 04/18/2022 01:57:00 PM] |
Filing 1 PETITION FOR REVIEW filed by Petitioner(s). [Entered: 04/18/2022 12:40:00 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.
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.