Filed: Oct. 30, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 08-1973 _ Frank R. Owens, * * Appellant, * * Appeals from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Tim Severin; John Ault; Jack Bates, * c/o; Donald Schbrenner; Darrell * [UNPUBLISHED] Moeller, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: October 15, 2008 Filed: October 30, 2008 _ Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. In these consolidated matters, we affirmed, or dismissed for lack of jur
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 08-1973 _ Frank R. Owens, * * Appellant, * * Appeals from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Tim Severin; John Ault; Jack Bates, * c/o; Donald Schbrenner; Darrell * [UNPUBLISHED] Moeller, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: October 15, 2008 Filed: October 30, 2008 _ Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. In these consolidated matters, we affirmed, or dismissed for lack of juri..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-1973
___________
Frank R. Owens, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeals from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Southern District of Iowa.
Tim Severin; John Ault; Jack Bates, *
c/o; Donald Schbrenner; Darrell * [UNPUBLISHED]
Moeller, *
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: October 15, 2008
Filed: October 30, 2008
___________
Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated matters, we affirmed, or dismissed for lack of jurisdiction,
all but one of the district court’s1 rulings, that being the denial of Owens’s motion for
substitute counsel in No. 08-1973. We remanded that aspect of the appeal for a fuller
explanation by the district court of the basis of its decision to deny that motion. See
Owens v. Severin, Nos. 08-1418/1973/2110, slip op. (8th Cir. Sept. 18, 2008).
1
The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Southern District of Iowa.
Having reviewed the district court’s promptly filed and fully explicated
response to the remand, we conclude that the district court “exercised a reasoned and
well-informed discretion” in denying the motion. See Slaughter v. City of
Maplewood,
731 F.2d 587, 589 (8th Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we now affirm the
denial of the motion for substitute counsel.
______________________________
-2-