United States v. Kenneth Smith


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: JAMES B. LOKEN, KERMIT E. BYE and STEVEN M. COLLOTON (UNPUBLISHED); denying [3804798-2] motion for appointment of counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Kenneth J. Smith.; granting [3786144-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Kenneth J. Smith. [3855311] [11-1645]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse 111 South 10th Street, Room 24.329 St. Louis, Missouri 63102 VOICE (314) 244-2400 FAX (314) 244-2780 www.ca8.uscourts.gov Michael E. Gans Clerk of Court December 02, 2011 Mr. Kenneth J. Smith FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 90109-132 FCI Forrest City Medium Inmate Mail P.O. Box 3000 Forrest City, AR 72336-0000 RE: 11-1645 United States v. Kenneth Smith Dear Mr. Smith: The court has issued an opinion in this case. Judgment has been entered in accordance with the opinion. Please review Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Eighth Circuit Rules on postsubmission procedure to ensure that any contemplated filing is timely and in compliance with the rules. Note particularly that petitions for rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc must be received in the clerk's office within 14 days of the date of the entry of judgment. Counsel-filed petitions must be filed electronically in CM/ECF. Paper copies are not required. No grace period for mailing is allowed, and the date of the postmark is irrelevant for pro-se-filed petitions. Any petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc which is not received within the 14 day period for filing permitted by FRAP 40 may be denied as untimely. Michael E. Gans Clerk of Court SRD Enclosure(s) cc: Mr. Nathan J. Owings Ms. Ann Thompson Mr. Matthew P. Wolesky District Court/Agency Case Number(s): 4:10-cr-00026-FJG-1 Appellate Case: 11-1645 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/02/2011 Entry ID: 3855311

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?