Filed: Sep. 12, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 04-4023 _ Stacy Abram, Jr., * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. State of Arkansas; City of Earle, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellees. * _ Submitted: September 7, 2005 Filed: September 12, 2005 _ Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Stacy Abram, Jr. sought to remove a criminal case pending against him in Earle City, Arkansas, to federal court
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 04-4023 _ Stacy Abram, Jr., * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. State of Arkansas; City of Earle, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellees. * _ Submitted: September 7, 2005 Filed: September 12, 2005 _ Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Stacy Abram, Jr. sought to remove a criminal case pending against him in Earle City, Arkansas, to federal court p..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 04-4023
___________
Stacy Abram, Jr., *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Eastern District of Arkansas.
State of Arkansas; City of Earle, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: September 7, 2005
Filed: September 12, 2005
___________
Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Stacy Abram, Jr. sought to remove a criminal case pending against him in Earle
City, Arkansas, to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1443. Upon the City of
Earle’s motion, the district court1 remanded the action to state court. This appeal
followed.
We note our authority to review whether the district court erred in denying
removal under section 1443, see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), and we agree with the district
1
The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Arkansas.
court that Abram failed to show any grounds to support his invocation of section
1443, see 28 U.S.C. §1443; City of Greenwood v. Peacock,
384 U.S. 808, 828 (1966);
Georgia v. Rachel,
384 U.S. 780, 788, 792, 803 (1966).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
-2-