Jeff Simmons, et al v. Sabine River Authority, et al
Filing
PUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [12-30494 Affirmed ] Judge: CES , Judge: JES , Judge: JLW Mandate pull date is 10/30/2013 [12-30494]
Case: 12-30494
Document: 00512402588
Page: 1
Date Filed: 10/09/2013
United States Court of Appeals
FIFTH CIRCUIT
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
LYLE W. CAYCE
CLERK
TEL. 504-310-7700
600 S. MAESTRI PLACE
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130
October 09, 2013
MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES LISTED BELOW
Regarding:
Fifth Circuit Statement on Petitions for Rehearing
or Rehearing En Banc
No. 12-30494
Simmons, et al v. Sabine River Auth., et al
USDC No. 2:10-CV-1846
--------------------------------------------------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. R.s 35, 39, and 41
govern costs, rehearings, and mandates. 5TH Cir. R.s 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.
The judgment entered provides that plaintiffs-appellants pay to
defendants-appellees the costs on appeal.
Case: 12-30494
Document: 00512402588
Page: 2
Date Filed: 10/09/2013
Sincerely,
LYLE W. CAYCE, Clerk
By: _______________________
Joseph M. Armato, Deputy Clerk
Enclosure(s)
Mr. Charles Brandon Brown
Ms. Nancy B. Gilbert
Mr. Martin Edward Golden
Mr. Victor L. Marcello
Mrs. Virginia Jordan McLin
Mr. Patrick W. Pendley
Ms. Jamie Ann Polozola
Mr. Nicholas Ryan Rockforte
Mr. John Powers Wolff 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?