Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Toure v. Ashcroft, 04-9570 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Number: 04-9570 Visitors: 7
Filed: Aug. 06, 2004
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 6 2004 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk DAOUDA TOURE, Petitioner, v. No. 04-9570 (BIA No. A77-779-185) JOHN ASHCROFT, (Petition for Review) Respondent. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before SEYMOUR , EBEL , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fe
More
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 6 2004 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk DAOUDA TOURE, Petitioner, v. No. 04-9570 (BIA No. A77-779-185) JOHN ASHCROFT, (Petition for Review) Respondent. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before SEYMOUR , EBEL , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. On July 16, 2004, we directed petitioner Daouda Toure to show cause within fourteen days why his petition for review should not be dismissed for lack * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. of jurisdiction. On July 21, 2004, the government filed a motion to dismiss. Petitioner’s response to our show cause order was due by July 30, 2004. Having received no response, we hold that we lack jurisdiction over petitioner’s petition for review for the reasons set out in our July 16 order. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the petition for review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. ENTERED FOR THE COURT PER CURIAM -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