Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

In Re: Dorsainvil, 96-8074 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Number: 96-8074 Visitors: 17
Filed: Aug. 15, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 1997 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-15-1997 In Re: Dorsainvil Precedential or Non-Precedential: Docket 96-8074 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1997 Recommended Citation "In Re: Dorsainvil" (1997). 1997 Decisions. Paper 193. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1997/193 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of App
More
Opinions of the United 1997 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-15-1997 In Re: Dorsainvil Precedential or Non-Precedential: Docket 96-8074 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1997 Recommended Citation "In Re: Dorsainvil" (1997). 1997 Decisions. Paper 193. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1997/193 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1997 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. iled August 15, 1997 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 96-8074 IN RE: OCSULIS DORSAINVIL, Petitioner On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, STAPLETON and COWEN, Circuit Judges ORDER AMENDING OPINION IS ORDERED that the slip opinion in the above case, filed July 23, 1997, be amended by the addition of the following footnote referenced by an asterisk after the word "court." on page 2, line 8 from the bottom: *. The court expresses its appreciation to counsel for the petitioner for serving as volunteers at the request of the court to brief and argue this matter, which is in the highest tradition of service by members of the profession. By the Court /s/ Dolores K. Sloviter Chief Judge Dated: August 15, 1997
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer