Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 94 views

    Scheduling Order

    Uploaded by

    wolf wood
    This order from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit establishes an expedited briefing schedule for three consolidated appeals related to regulations banning bump stocks. The order sets deadlines for the appellants' briefs, the appellees' brief, appellants' reply briefs, and schedules oral arguments to take place on March 22, 2019. One circuit judge dissents from expediting the appeals, arguing the appellants failed to demonstrate that expediting the appeals clears the high bar required.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved

    Scheduling Order

    Uploaded by

    wolf wood
    94 views3 pages
    This order from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit establishes an expedited briefing schedule for three consolidated appeals related to regulations banning bump stocks. The order sets deadlines for the appellants' briefs, the appellees' brief, appellants' reply briefs, and schedules oral arguments to take place on March 22, 2019. One circuit judge dissents from expediting the appeals, arguing the appellants failed to demonstrate that expediting the appeals clears the high bar required.

    Original Description:

    Bump stock scheduling order for appellate briefing

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This order from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit establishes an expedited briefing schedule for three consolidated appeals related to regulations banning bump stocks. The order sets deadlines for the appellants' briefs, the appellees' brief, appellants' reply briefs, and schedules oral arguments to take place on March 22, 2019. One circuit judge dissents from expediting the appeals, arguing the appellants failed to demonstrate that expediting the appeals clears the high bar required.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    94 views3 pages

    Scheduling Order

    Uploaded by

    wolf wood
    This order from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit establishes an expedited briefing schedule for three consolidated appeals related to regulations banning bump stocks. The order sets deadlines for the appellants' briefs, the appellees' brief, appellants' reply briefs, and schedules oral arguments to take place on March 22, 2019. One circuit judge dissents from expediting the appeals, arguing the appellants failed to demonstrate that expediting the appeals clears the high bar required.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    You are on page 1of 3

    USCA Case #19-5042 Document #1775589 Filed: 03/01/2019 Page 1 of 3

    United States Court of Appeals


    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    ____________
    No. 19-5042 September Term, 2018
    1:18-cv-02988-DLF
    1:18-cv-03086-DLF
    Filed On: March 1, 2019
    Damien Guedes, et al.,

    Appellants

    Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc.,

    Appellee

    v.

    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and


    Explosives, et al.,

    Appellees

    ------------------------------

    Consolidated with 19-5043, 19-5044

    BEFORE: Henderson*, Srinivasan, and Millett, Circuit Judges

    ORDER

    Upon consideration of the motion to expedite, the response thereto, the notice of
    joinder, and the reply, it is

    ORDERED that the following briefing schedule will apply:

    Appellants’ Briefs March 4, 2019


    (not to exceed a combined total
    of 19,500 words)

    Appendix March 4, 2019


    USCA Case #19-5042 Document #1775589 Filed: 03/01/2019 Page 2 of 3

    United States Court of Appeals


    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    ____________
    No. 19-5042 September Term, 2018

    Appellees’ Brief March 13, 2019


    (not to exceed 19,500 words)

    Appellants’ Reply Briefs March 15, 2019


    (not to exceed a combined total
    of 9,750 words)

    It is FURTHER ORDERED that oral argument be scheduled before this panel on


    Friday, March 22, 2019, commencing at 9:30 a.m.

    In view of the expedited nature of the appeal, no requests for extensions of time
    will be considered. Appellants are urged to coordinate the preparation of their briefs in
    an effort to limit any duplication. See D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal
    Procedures 37 (2018).

    To enhance the clarity of their briefs, the parties are urged to limit the use of
    abbreviations, including acronyms. While acronyms may be used for entities and
    statutes with widely recognized initials, briefs should not contain acronyms that are not
    widely known. See D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 41
    (2018); Notice Regarding Use of Acronyms (D.C. Cir. Jan. 26, 2010).

    The parties are directed to hand-deliver the paper copies of their submissions to
    the court by 4:00 p.m. on the date due.

    Per Curiam

    *A statement by Circuit Judge Henderson, dissenting from this order, is attached.

    Page 2
    USCA Case #19-5042 Document #1775589 Filed: 03/01/2019 Page 3 of 3

    United States Court of Appeals


    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    ____________
    No. 19-5042 September Term, 2018

    Karen LeCraft Henderson, Circuit Judge, dissenting: The appellants in this case
    make an extraordinary request: they want us to order briefing, hear argument and issue
    an opinion all within the next three weeks. An extraordinary request calls for an
    extraordinary showing. But the appellants fail to demonstrate, or even try to demonstrate,
    that their appeal clears the high bar for expedited consideration.

    There is an orderly and established set of procedures for expediting appeals. D.C.
    Cir. R. 47.2; D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedure § VIII.B, at 33
    (2018). Among them, an appellant may file a motion for expedited consideration of his
    appeal. The standard for such relief is stringent. D.C. Circuit Handbook at 33. “The
    movant must demonstrate that the delay will cause irreparable injury and that the decision
    under review is subject to substantial challenge.” Id. (emphasis added). We may also—in
    rare circumstances—“expedite cases in which the public generally, or in which persons not
    before the Court, have an unusual interest in prompt disposition.” Id.

    These settled principles require the denial of the motion for expedition sub judice.
    The government conceded in district court that the appellants will suffer irreparable injury
    if the regulation at issue in this case goes into effect. Opp’n to Plaintiffs’ Mot. for Prelim.
    Inj. at 71 n.40, Guedes, et al. v. ATF, et al., No. 1:18-cv-02988 (D.D.C. 2019), ECF No. 16.
    But the appellants make no effort to demonstrate “that the decision under review is subject
    to substantial challenge.” D.C. Circuit Handbook at 33. Indeed, their motion neither
    discusses the merits of the case nor explains how the district court erred. Although they
    describe the issues as “urgent and significant,” Mot. to Expedite at 6, their total emphasis
    is on expedition. The appellants have forfeited any argument that their appeal raises a
    substantial challenge to the district court’s sixty-four page order and have thus failed to
    meet the stringent standard for expedited consideration. Order, Purepac Pharm. Co. v.
    Thompson, No. 02-5410, 2003 WL 174023 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 21, 2003) (denying motion for
    expedition because appellant failed to “demonstrate that delay will cause irreparable injury
    and that the decision under review is subject to substantial challenge”); Order, Northpoint
    Tech., Ltd. v. FCC, No. 02-1194, 2002 WL 31011256 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 29, 2002) (same); see
    also N.Y. Rehab. Care Mgmt., LLC v. NLRB, 506 F.3d 1070, 1076 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (party
    forfeits argument by failing to brief it or by mentioning it only “in the most skeletal way”
    (quoting Schneider v. Kissinger, 412 F.3d 190, 200 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2005)). I believe their
    motion should be denied and, accordingly, respectfully dissent.

    Page 3

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy