Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Williams

United States District Court, D. Nevada

June 23, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
FREDERICK VERNON WILLIAMS, et al., Defendants.

ORDER AND REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

CAM FERENBACH, Magistrate Judge.

This matter involves the prosecution of Frederick Vernon Williams, et al. for fraudulently procuring United States passports, unemployment benefits, and Nevada identification cards. ( See, e.g., Indictment (#1) at 1-3). Before the court are Williams' motions for:

• Rule 17(b) subpoena (#216);
• Rule 17(b) subpoena (#217);
• Ex parte motion to proceed to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (#219);
• Ex parte motion for reconsideration (#230);
• Ex parte motion for clarification (#236);
• Ex parte motion for funds for expert assistance (#249);
• Motion to Dismiss (#256); and,
• Motion to Calendar an emergency pretrial order conference (#258).

On June 13, 2014, Williams filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. ( See Doc. #268). "The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance-it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal." Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S.Ct. 400, 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (1982); see also Dayton Indep. Sch. Dist. v. U.S. Mineral Prods. Co., 906 F.2d 1059, 1063 (5th Cir. 1990) ("When one aspect of a case is before the appellate court on interlocutory review, the district court is divested of jurisdiction over that aspect of the case. A district court does not have the power to alter the status of the case as it rests before the Court of Appeals.") The district court does not regain jurisdiction over those issues until the court of appeals issues its mandate. Id.

Williams' appeals the Honorable James C. Mahan's order, which adopted several of the undersigned's reports and recommendations, including a report and recommendation concerning one of Williams' motions to dismiss. ( See Doc. #261). Because Williams' appeal potentially affects the entire landscape of Williams' defense, the court denies Williams' motions without prejudice pending an order for the Ninth Circuit.

ACCORDINGLY, and for good cause shown,

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that Williams' motion for Rule 17(b) subpoena (#216) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Williams' motion for Rule 17(b) subpoena (#217) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Williams' ex parte motion to proceed to proceed in the District Court without prepaying fees or costs (#219) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Williams' ex parte motion for reconsideration (#230) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Williams' ex parte motion for clarification (#236) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Williams' ex parte motion for funds for expert assistance (#249) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Williams' motion to calendar an emergency pretrial order conference (#258) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

RECOMMENDATION

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Williams' motion to dismiss (#256) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.