Nasby v. Garrett

D. Nevada

Nasby v. Garrett

DecidedMay 2, 2022

Docket3:07-cv-00304

StatusUnknown

This text of Nasby v. Garrett (Nasby v. Garrett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nasby v. Garrett, (D. Nev. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 ook ok 4 BRENDAN NASBY, Case No. 3:07-cv-00304-LRH-WGC 5 Petitioner, ‘ v. ORDER 4 TIM GARRETT, et al., Respondents. 9 This habeas matter is before the Court on Petitioner Brendan Nasby’s unopposed Motion 10 || to Extend Time (ECF No. 220). Generally, an appeal in a civil case must be taken within 30 days 11 || after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. 4(a). Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate 12 || Procedure (“FRAP”) is the exclusive avenue for relief from the expiration of the period to file a 13 || timely notice of appeal. See In re Stein, 197 F.3d 421, 426-27 (9th Cir. 2000). Rule 4(a) provides 14 || as follows: I5 The district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if: y PP 16 (1) a party so moves no later than 30 days after the time prescribed by this Rule 17 4(a) expires; and (ii) regardless of whether its motion is filed before or during the 30 days after 18 the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a) expires, that party shows excusable 19 neglect or good cause.

20 || FRAP 4(a)(5)(A). 21 Good cause appearing, the Court grants Petitioner’s motion to extend. Petitioner has until 22 || May 27, 2022 to file his notice of appeal. 23 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Extend Time (ECF No. 220) 24 || is GRANTED. 25 DATED this 2"4 day of May 2022. 26 - 27 fo Xf OL Mt ff ARRMICNIEK EAT A 28 {ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 ook ok 4 BRENDAN NASBY, Case No. 3:07-cv-00304-LRH-WGC 5 Petitioner, ‘ v. ORDER 4 TIM GARRETT, et al., Respondents. 9 This habeas matter is before the Court on Petitioner Brendan Nasby’s unopposed Motion 10 || to Extend Time (ECF No. 220). Generally, an appeal in a civil case must be taken within 30 days 11 || after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. 4(a). Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate 12 || Procedure (“FRAP”) is the exclusive avenue for relief from the expiration of the period to file a 13 || timely notice of appeal. See In re Stein, 197 F.3d 421, 426-27 (9th Cir. 2000). Rule 4(a) provides 14 || as follows: I5 The district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if: y PP 16 (1) a party so moves no later than 30 days after the time prescribed by this Rule 17 4(a) expires; and (ii) regardless of whether its motion is filed before or during the 30 days after 18 the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a) expires, that party shows excusable 19 neglect or good cause.

20 || FRAP 4(a)(5)(A). 21 Good cause appearing, the Court grants Petitioner’s motion to extend. Petitioner has until 22 || May 27, 2022 to file his notice of appeal. 23 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Extend Time (ECF No. 220) 24 || is GRANTED. 25 DATED this 2"4 day of May 2022. 26 - 27 fo Xf OL Mt ff ARRMICNIEK EAT A 28 {ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In Re: Alexander v. Stein, Debtor. John Mitchell, as Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Alexander Stein v. Burt Vetterlein & Bushnell Pc, an Oregon Professional Corporation Eric H. Vetterlein Burt & Gordon Pc, an Oregon Professional Corporation Robert G. Burt Andrea L. Bushnell Burt & Vetterlein Pc, an Oregon Professional Corporation, and Mark A. Gordon, in Re: Alexander v. Stein, Debtor. John Mitchell, as Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Alexander Stein v. Burt Vetterlein & Bushnell Pc, an Oregon Professional Corporation Burt & Gordon Pc, an Oregon Professional Corporation Robert G. Burt Burt & Vetterlein Pc, an Oregon Professional Corporation, and Eric H. Vetterlein Mark A. Gordon Andrea L. Bushnell

197 F.3d 421 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Nasby v. Garrett, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nasby-v-garrett-nvd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack