Rocha v. Antonovich

Ninth Circuit

Rocha v. Antonovich

36 F. App'x 260

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 15, 2002

DocketNo. 00-57059; D.C. No. CV-00-04989-AHM

StatusPublished

This text of 36 F. App'x 260 (Rocha v. Antonovich) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rocha v. Antonovich, 36 F. App'x 260 (9th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Because the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument, see United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam), we grant appellee’s motion for summary affirmance, see Brewster v. Shasta County, 275 F.3d 803 (9th Cir.2001); Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729 (9th Cir. 2001).

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court’s judgment.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

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

ORDER

Because the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument, see United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam), we grant appellee’s motion for summary affirmance, see Brewster v. Shasta County, 275 F.3d 803 (9th Cir.2001); Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729 (9th Cir. 2001).

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court’s judgment.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 F. App'x 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rocha-v-antonovich-ca9-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack