Paul Morgan v. State of Mississippi, et al
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [09-60959 Affirmed ] Judge: TMR , Judge: JLD , Judge: EBC Mandate pull date is 06/24/2011 [09-60959]
Case: 09-60959 Document: 00511497258 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2011
United States Court of Appeals
FIFTH C IR C U IT
O FFIC E O F TH E C LER K
LYLE W . C A YC E
C LER K
600 S. M A ESTR I PLA C E
NEW O R LEA N S, LA 70130
June 03, 2011
MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES LISTED BELOW
Fifth Circuit Statement on Petitions for Rehearing or
Rehearing En Banc
No. 09-60959, Paul Morgan v. State of Mississippi, et al
USDC No. 2:07-CV-15
--------------------------------------------------Enclosed is a copy of the court's decision.
The court has
entered judgment under FED . R. APP . P. 36. (However, the opinion
may yet contain typographical or printing errors which are
subject to correction.)
FED. R. APP. P. 39 through 41, and 5TH CIR . RULES 35, 39, and 41
govern costs, rehearings, and mandates. 5TH CIR . RULES 35 and 40
require you to attach to your petition for panel rehearing or
rehearing en banc an unmarked copy of the court's opinion or
order. Please read carefully the Internal Operating Procedures
(IOP's) following FED . R. APP . P. 40 and 5TH CIR . R. 35 for a
discussion of when a rehearing may be appropriate, the legal
standards applied and sanctions which may be imposed if you make
a nonmeritorious petition for rehearing en banc.
Direct Criminal Appeals.
5TH CIR . R. 41 provides that a motion
for a stay of mandate under FED . R. APP . P. 41 will not be
granted simply upon request.
The petition must set forth good
cause for a stay or clearly demonstrate that a substantial
question will be presented to the Supreme Court. Otherwise, this
court may deny the motion and issue the mandate immediately.
Pro Se Cases.
If you were unsuccessful in the district court
and/or on appeal, and are considering filing a petition for
certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, you do not need to
file a motion for stay of mandate under FED . R. APP . P. 41. The
issuance of the mandate does not affect the time, or your right,
to file with the Supreme Court.
LYLE W. CAYCE, Clerk
Joseph M. Armato, Deputy Clerk
Case: 09-60959 Document: 00511497258 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2011
Charles Baron Irvin
Paul Grahame Morgan
Joseph A. O'Connell III
Robert H. Pedersen
Vardaman Kimball Smith III
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?