U.S. v. Reed

11 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Walker

    7:17-cr-34-WLS-TQL (M.D. Ga. Apr. 23, 2024)

    In re Walker, 515 F.3d 1204, 1211 (11th Cir. 2008) (emphasis added). See also United States v. Reed, 404 Fed.Appx. 464, 465 (11th Cir. 2010) (“The general rule regarding divestiture of jurisdiction, however, does not apply to collateral matters not affecting the questions presented on appeal.”)

  2. Daker v. Dozier

    CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:18-cv-73 (S.D. Ga. May. 1, 2020)

    Thus, his motion is directly related to the current appeal and as such is not a collateral matter. See, e.g., Fodor v. D'Isernia, 599 F. App'x 375, 376 (11th Cir. 2015) (district court properly retained jurisdiction because the issue before it "did not relate" to the issue on appeal); U.S. v. Reed, 404 F. App'x 464, 465 (11th Cir. 2010) (district court could still rule on plaintiff's motion because it was "separate and distinct from the issues raised in his notice of appeal"). Plaintiff has previously filed a Motion to Vacate the Court's Adoption Order, (docs. 18, 24.), which this Court denied, (doc. 27). --------

  3. United States v. Ortiz-Lopez

    Case No.: 8:11-cr-48-T-33AAS (M.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2017)   Cited 4 times
    In Ortiz-Lopez, the court recognized a circuit split on the issue and ultimately found the filing of the defendant's appeal did divest it of jurisdiction.

    The Court explained that "[t]he filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance — it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal." United States v. Reed, 404 F. App'x 464, 465 (11th Cir. 2010)(quoting Thompson v. RelationServe Media, Inc., 610 F.3d 628, 638 n.14 (11th Cir. 2010)(quotation omitted)).

  4. Potter v. Dooly Cnty.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-315 (MTT) (M.D. Ga. Aug. 2, 2016)

    Because the issues in Potter's motion are "separate and distinct from the issues raised in [the] notice of appeal," the Defendants' argument is without merit. United States v. Reed, 404 F. App'x 464, 465 (11th Cir. 2010). Pursuant to Local Rule 7.6, "Motions for Reconsideration shall not be filed as a matter of routine practice.

  5. Miller v. Williams

    4:11-cv-65 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 13, 2012)

    Moreover, to the extent Miller is here raising claims currently on appeal, this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain such claims. See Docs. 39; 40; United States v. Reed, 404 F. App'x 464, 465 (11th Cir. 2010) ("The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal."). Miller is warned, however, not to burden this Court with frivolous complaints.

  6. U.S. v. Watson

    Case No. 04-CR-182-TCK (N.D. Okla. Jul. 28, 2011)   Cited 5 times

    However, the Motion to Return Property is collateral to the issues presented on appeal, and the Court is not divested of jurisdiction based on such appeal. See United States v. Reed, 404 Fed. Appx. 464, 465 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding that appeal did not diverst court of jurisdiction over motion for return of property because such motion was "separate and distinct" from issues presented on appeal). When property is seized and held by local law enforcement officials, as opposed to federal law enforcement officials, a federal court ordinarily lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a motion to return such property.

  7. Reddick v. Hutcheson

    6:08-cv-6 (S.D. Ga. Jul. 18, 2011)

    Reddick's appeal divests this Court of jurisdiction to decide his motions. See United States v. Reed, 404 F. App'x 464, 465 (11th Cir. 2010) ("The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance — it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal."). Reddick's motions, see Doc. 209, 210, 211, 214, 215, are DISMISSED.

  8. Kicklighter v. U.S.

    6:11-cv-62, 6:05-cr-34 (S.D. Ga. Jul. 18, 2011)

    Kicklighter's appeal divests this Court of jurisdiction to decide his motion for reconsideration. See United States v. Reed, 404 F. App'x 464, 465 (11th Cir. 2010). "The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance — it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal."

  9. Baddy v. Chapman

    6:11-cv-8 (S.D. Ga. Jun. 21, 2011)

    "The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance . . . and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal." See United States v. Reed, 404 F. App'x 464, 465 (11th Cir. 2010). But this matter is currently before the Court on Baddy's implied motion for a Certificate of Appealability ("COA").

  10. Turner v. U.S.

    6:11-cv-16 (S.D. Ga. May. 24, 2011)

    See Doc. 7. Before the Court ruled, however, Turner appealed the same dismissal to the Eleventh Circuit. See Doc. 8. Turner's appeal divested this Court of jurisdiction to decide his motion for reconsideration. See United States v. Reed, 404 F. App'x 464, 465 (11th Cir. 2010) ("The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance — it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal."). Turner's motion for reconsideration, see Doc. 7, is DISMISSED.