Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
7Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
USDC D.C.. 2013-06-05 - Sibley v Obama APPEAL - Order - AFFIRMED

USDC D.C.. 2013-06-05 - Sibley v Obama APPEAL - Order - AFFIRMED

Ratings: (0)|Views: 142|Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan
USDC D.C. 2013-06-05 - Sibley v Obama APPEAL - Order - AFFIRMED
USDC D.C. 2013-06-05 - Sibley v Obama APPEAL - Order - AFFIRMED

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: Jack Ryan on Jun 07, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/20/2013

pdf

text

original

 
United States Court of Appeals
F
OR
T
HE
D
ISTRICT OF
C
OLUMBIA
C
IRCUIT
 ___________
No. 13-5017September Term, 2012
1:12-cv-01832-JDBFiled On:
June 5, 2013Montgomery Blair Sibley, Appellantv.Barack Hussein Obama, Appellee
BEFORE
:Tatel, Brown, and Griffith, Circuit Judges
O R D E R
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the lodged oppositionthereto, and the reply, it is
ORDERED
that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See TaxpayersWatchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Appellant’s“self declaration as a write-in candidate” does not confer Article III standing to bring apetition for writ of quo warranto against President Obama. Sibley v. Obama, No. 12-5198 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 6, 2012). In addition, appellant has not alleged grounds for findingthat the district judge was biased or prejudiced against him, or that the judge’simpartiality could reasonably be questioned. 28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455; Liteky v. UnitedStates, 510 U.S. 540, 550 (1994). Nor has appellant shown that this court’s summaryaffirmance procedure deprives him of adequate notice or a meaningful opportunity to beheard, James Madison Ltd. ex rel. Hecht v. Ludwig, 82 F.3d 1085, 1099 (D.C. Cir.1996), or violates Fed. R. App. P. 47 or the Rules Enabling Act, Sibley v. Sibley, No.11-7051 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 27, 2011). Finally, appellant has made no showing that hewas entitled to a jury trial or to oral argument in district court.
USCA Case #13-5017 Document #1439706 Filed: 06/05/2013 Page 1 of 2

Activity (7)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
Carl McNealy liked this
kjreisman liked this
possumpouch liked this
liveclive304393 liked this
Brendon Guiznot liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->