Bradley Beers v. Attorney General United States, No. 17-3010 (3d Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on June 20, 2019.
Download PDF
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ No. 17-3010 ________________ BRADLEY BEERS; JOSEPH DIVITA*, Appellants v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; UNITED STATES BUREAU OF ALCOHOL TOBACCO FIREARMS & EXPLOSIVES; THOMAS E. BRANDON, Deputy Director of the ATF; RONALD B. TURK, Associates Deputy Director/ Chief Operating Office of the ATF; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; DIRECTOR FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL; PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE; TYREE BLOCKER, Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police; EDWARD DONNELLY, Bucks County Sheriff; BUCKS COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT; BUCKS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY *(Party Dismissed Pursuant to Court Order dated 02/13/18) _______________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D. C. Civil No. 2-16-cv-06440) District Judge: Honorable Legrome D. Davis ________________ On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States Submitted on Remand June 19, 2020 Before: SHWARTZ, ROTH and RENDELL, Circuit Judges _________________ JUDGMENT ORDER __________________ By opinion and judgment entered on June 20, 2019, this Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court. Appellant Bradley Beers filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted. On May 18, 2020, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of this Court and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950). On consideration whereof, it is now hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the appeal is dismissed as moot. The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate. BY THE COURT: s/ Jane R. Roth Circuit Judge ATTEST: s/ Patricia S. Dodszuweit Clerk Dated: September 25, 2020
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
