Filed: Oct. 12, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 04-4070 _ State of Minnesota, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Philander Dermont Jenkins, Jr., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * _ Submitted: October 7, 2005 Filed: October 12, 2005 _ Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Philander Dermont Jenkins sought to remove a criminal case pending against him in Hennepin County, Minnesota, to federal cou
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 04-4070 _ State of Minnesota, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Philander Dermont Jenkins, Jr., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * _ Submitted: October 7, 2005 Filed: October 12, 2005 _ Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Philander Dermont Jenkins sought to remove a criminal case pending against him in Hennepin County, Minnesota, to federal cour..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 04-4070
___________
State of Minnesota, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* District of Minnesota.
Philander Dermont Jenkins, Jr., *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: October 7, 2005
Filed: October 12, 2005
___________
Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Philander Dermont Jenkins sought to remove a criminal case pending against
him in Hennepin County, Minnesota, to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. The
district court1 summarily remanded the action to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1446(c)(4). 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 David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of
Minnesota.
court that Jenkins failed to show sufficient grounds to support his invocation of
section 1443, see 28 U.S.C. § 1443; Georgia v. Rachel,
384 U.S. 780, 792, 797-99
(1966); City of Greenwood v. Peacock,
384 U.S. 808, 826-27, 832 (1966).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
-2-