Kempis Songster v. Secretary PA Dept Corrections, 12-3941 (2016)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Number: 12-3941
Visitors: 117
Filed: Mar. 15, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 12-3941 _ KEMPIS P. SONGSTER v. SECRETARY PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; DAVID DIGUGLIELMO; THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY PHILADELPHIA; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellants On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (No. 2-04-cv-05916) District Judge: Hon. Timothy J. Savage Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 8, 2016 Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE, and
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 12-3941 _ KEMPIS P. SONGSTER v. SECRETARY PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; DAVID DIGUGLIELMO; THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY PHILADELPHIA; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellants On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (No. 2-04-cv-05916) District Judge: Hon. Timothy J. Savage Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 8, 2016 Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE, and S..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 12-3941
_____________
KEMPIS P. SONGSTER
v.
SECRETARY PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
DAVID DIGUGLIELMO; THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY PHILADELPHIA;
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Appellants
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(No. 2-04-cv-05916)
District Judge: Hon. Timothy J. Savage
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 8, 2016
Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE, and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges.
__________________
JUDGMENT ORDER
___________________
This cause came to be considered on the record from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and was submitted pursuant to Third
Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on March 8, 2016.
While on appeal, the United States Supreme Court decided Montgomery v.
Louisiana, 577 U.S. ___ (2016). Appellee now seeks remand and represents to the Court
that Appellants are in agreement that remand is appropriate. We hold that the District
Court should have the opportunity to consider the implications of Montgomery in the first
instance. For that reason, it is now hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED by this Court
that the District Court's order dated September 6, 2012 is VACATED and REMANDED
for proceedings not inconsistent with Montgomery.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Michael A. Chagares
Circuit Judge
ATTEST:
s/Marcia M. Waldron
Clerk
Dated: March 15, 2016
Source: CourtListener