Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Christeson v. Roper
Christeson v. Roper, 135 S. Ct. 14 (2014)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2014-10-28
- Topic
- general
UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicant and the response filed thereto, IT IS ORDERED that the parties are directed to file supplemental briefs by 2:00 pm today, October, 28, 2014, regarding whether the record shows that petitioner has authorized Attorney Jennifer A. Merrigan, or Attorney John R. Mills, or Attorney Joseph J. Perkovich to move on his behalf for substitution of counsel appointed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3599.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Christeson v. Roper. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 3 opinions
UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicant and the response filed thereto,
IT IS ORDERED that the parties are directed to file supplemental briefs by 2:00 pm today, October, 28, 2014, regarding whether the record shows that petitioner has authorized Attorney Jennifer A. Merrigan, or Attorney John R. Mills, or Attorney Joseph J. Perkovich to move on his behalf for substitution of counsel appointed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3599.