Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Rivera v. Comm PA, 04-2072 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Number: 04-2072 Visitors: 38
Filed: Mar. 07, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-7-2006 Rivera v. Comm PA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-2072 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006 Recommended Citation "Rivera v. Comm PA" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1478. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1478 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the Unit
More
Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-7-2006 Rivera v. Comm PA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-2072 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006 Recommended Citation "Rivera v. Comm PA" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1478. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1478 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 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 04-2072 ANGEL RIVERA Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 02-cv-08399) District Judge: The Honorable Charles R. Weiner Before: BARRY, AMBRO and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges ORDER SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC It appearing that the Petition for Panel Rehearing filed by Appellant having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court, and that Appellant has now raised a question not contained in his brief that we may nevertheless consider because it relates to jurisdiction, to-wit, a suggestion that the District Court violated Rule 58's requirement that every judgment should be entered on a separate document, it is ORDERED that the petition for panel rehearing is hereby GRANTED and that the opinion heretofore filed is hereby VACATED, and the Clerk DIRECTED to set up a briefing schedule for the parties limited to the Rule 58 issue only for consideration at a date to be determined by the panel. BY THE COURT /s/ Ruggero J. Aldisert, Circuit Judge DATED: March 7, 2006 CMD/cc: Jeremy A. Mercer, Esq. David J. Mussel, Esq. 2
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