Home/Eighth Circuit/United States v. Matthew Sylvester Two Bulls, A/K/A Matthew Sylvester Two Bulls, Jr.

United States v. Matthew Sylvester Two Bulls, A/K/A Matthew Sylvester Two Bulls, Jr.

925 F.2d 1127
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedApril 18, 1991
Docket90-5040
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 925 F.2d 1127 (United States v. Matthew Sylvester Two Bulls, A/K/A Matthew Sylvester Two Bulls, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Matthew Sylvester Two Bulls, A/K/A Matthew Sylvester Two Bulls, Jr., 925 F.2d 1127 (8th Cir. 1991).

Opinion

925 F.2d 1127

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Matthew Sylvester TWO BULLS, a/k/a Matthew Sylvester Two
Bulls, Jr., Appellant.

No. 90-5040SD.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Feb. 21, 1991.
Order Vacating Rehearing En Banc
and Dismissing Appeal
April 18, 1991.

Frank A. Bettman, Bettman, Feehan & Cline, Rapid City, S.D., for appellant.

Robert A. Mandel, Asst. U.S. Atty., Rapid City, S.D., for appellee.

Prior report: 918 F.2d 56.

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR REHEARING WITH SUGGESTION FOR

REHEARING EN BANC

Appellee's petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc has been considered by the court and is granted. The opinion and judgment of this court filed on October 31, 1990, are vacated. The case will be set down for en banc hearing at 9:00 A.M. on Thursday, May 2, 1991, in the U.S. Courthouse in St. Paul, Minnesota. Each party may file supplemental briefs not to exceed fifteen pages.

ORDER

April 18, 1991.

The United States has moved to dismiss this appeal upon suggestion of death of the appellant, Matthew Sylvester Two Bulls. The court being fully apprised thereof now hereby orders that the scheduled en banc hearing is hereby vacated and the appeal dismissed. The case is remanded to the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota with directions to dismiss the indictment. See Bradley v. United States, 404 U.S. 567, 92 S.Ct. 746, 30 L.Ed.2d 722 (1972).

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

Related

Turner v. State
746 So. 2d 355 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1998)
Pioneer Hi-Bred International v. Holden Foundation Seeds, Inc.
35 F.3d 1226 (Eighth Circuit, 1994)
Pioneer Hi-Bred International, an Iowa Corporation v. Holden Foundation Seeds, Inc., an Iowa Corporation, Hawaiian Research, Ltd., an Iowa Corporation Corn States Hybrid Service, Inc., an Iowa Corporation, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, an Iowa Corporation v. Holden Foundation Seeds, Inc., an Iowa Corporation, Hawaiian Research, Ltd., an Iowa Corporation Corn States Hybrid Service, Inc., an Iowa Corporation
35 F.3d 1226 (Eighth Circuit, 1994)
State v. Bible
858 P.2d 1152 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1993)
Rivera v. State
840 P.2d 933 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1992)
United States v. Randolph Jakobetz
955 F.2d 786 (Second Circuit, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
925 F.2d 1127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-matthew-sylvester-two-bulls-aka-matthew-sylvester-two-ca8-1991.