Christeson v. Roper

Supreme Court

Christeson v. Roper

135 S. Ct. 14, 190 L. Ed. 2d 322, 83 U.S.L.W. 3264, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 7179

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided October 28, 2014·No. No. 14A445 14–6873.·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicant and the response filed thereto,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties are directed to file supplemental briefs by 2:00 pm today, October, 28, 2014, regarding whether the record shows that petitioner has authorized Attorney Jennifer A. Merrigan, or Attorney John R. Mills, or Attorney Joseph J. Perkovich to move on his behalf for substitution of counsel appointed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3599.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicant and the response filed thereto,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties are directed to file supplemental briefs by 2:00 pm today, October, 28, 2014, regarding whether the record shows that petitioner has authorized Attorney Jennifer A. Merrigan, or Attorney John R. Mills, or Attorney Joseph J. Perkovich to move on his behalf for substitution of counsel appointed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3599.

Christeson v. Roper, 135 S. Ct. 14, 190 L. Ed. 2d 322, 83 U.S.L.W. 3264, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 7179 (U.S. 2014).

Pincite

135 S. Ct. 14 (Christeson v. Roper) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related