Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Aurelio O. Gonzalez v. Secretary For the Dept. of Corrections, Emil Lazo v. United States of America, Stephen A. Mobley v. Frederick Head, 02-12054 & 02-12483 & 02-14224 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Number: 02-12054 & 02-12483 & 02-14224 Visitors: 42
Filed: Apr. 03, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS _ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT APRIL 1, 2003 THOMAS K. KAHN No. 02-12054 CLERK _ D. C. Docket No. 97-01935-CV-UUB AURELIO O. GONZALEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, versus SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, James Crosby, Secretary, Respondent-Appellee. _ No. 02-12483 _ D. C. Docket Nos. 96-08752-CV-WJZ and 90-08108 CR-WJZ EMIL LAZO, Petitioner-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee
More
                                                          [PUBLISH]

             IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                   FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT            FILED
                                              U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                  ____________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                                                    APRIL 1, 2003
                                                 THOMAS K. KAHN
                          No. 02-12054                CLERK
                  ____________________________
                 D. C. Docket No. 97-01935-CV-UUB


AURELIO O. GONZALEZ,
                                               Petitioner-Appellant,
                              versus

SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
James Crosby, Secretary,
                                        Respondent-Appellee.

                  ______________________________

                            No. 02-12483
                 ______________________________
                 D. C. Docket Nos. 96-08752-CV-WJZ
                               and 90-08108 CR-WJZ

EMIL LAZO,

                                                Petitioner-Appellant,

                              versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Respondent-Appellee.
                        ----------------------------------
             Appeals from the United States District Court for the
                        Southern District of Florida
                         ---------------------------------

                     _____________________________

                               No. 02-14224
                     _____________________________
                       D. C. Docket No. 99-00023-CV

STEPHEN A. MOBLEY,

                                                           Petitioner-Appellant,

                                    versus

FREDERICK HEAD, Warden,
Georgia Diagnostic and
Classification Center,

                                                          Respondent-Appellee.

                        ----------------------------------
              Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                        Northern District of Georgia
                        ----------------------------------
                                (April 1, 2003)

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, ANDERSON, BIRCH,
DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES, BARKETT, HULL, MARCUS and WILSON,
Circuit Judges.

B Y T H E C O U R T:

     The Court has determined to hear the following cases en banc: Mobley v.



                                       2
Head, No. 02-14224, Lazo v. U.S., No. 02-12483, and Gonzalez v. Sec’y for the

Dept. of Corrections, No. 02-12054.

      The cases will be orally argued before the Court sitting en banc on June 17,

2003, in Atlanta, Georgia.

      The Court sua sponte VACATES the following orders: the December 16,

2002, Order issued in Lazo v. U.S., No. 02-12483, as well as the January 10, 2003

and the August 15, 2002, Orders issued in Gonzalez v. Sec’y for the Dept. of

Corrections, No. 02-12054.

      Nos. 02-12483 and 02-12054 are hereby REINSTATED.

      Counsel for Appellants Lazo and Gonzalez will be appointed by separate

Order.

      In light of the above, Appellant Gonzalez’ “Motion to Reconsider, Vacate

or Modify” is DENIED AS MOOT.




                                        3

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