Cobble v. Doe

D.C. Circuit

Cobble v. Doe

598 F. App'x 1

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 20, 2015

DocketNo. 14-5118

StatusPublished

This text of 598 F. App'x 1 (Cobble v. Doe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cobble v. Doe, 598 F. App'x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the [2]*2brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed March 20, 2014 be affirmed. The question whether and when to initiate a prosecution is committed to the discretion of the Attorney General, see Powell v. Katzenbach, 359 F.2d 234, 234 (D.C.Cir.1965) (per curiam), and clemency decisions are entrusted to the sole discretion of the President, see United States v. Pollard, 416 F.3d 48, 57 (D.C.Cir.2005). As a result, appellant’s request for mandamus relief was properly denied.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

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

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the [2]*2brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed March 20, 2014 be affirmed. The question whether and when to initiate a prosecution is committed to the discretion of the Attorney General, see Powell v. Katzenbach, 359 F.2d 234, 234 (D.C.Cir.1965) (per curiam), and clemency decisions are entrusted to the sole discretion of the President, see United States v. Pollard, 416 F.3d 48, 57 (D.C.Cir.2005). As a result, appellant’s request for mandamus relief was properly denied.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

598 F. App'x 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cobble-v-doe-cadc-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack