Supreme-El v. United States et al, No. 7:2016cv00060 - Document 6 (W.D. Va. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 3/28/2016. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
e.iyjjjjj ek kwd A jt: i* e Ir . l I TH E U NI N TED STATES DI STRI T C O UR T C FO R T H E W ESTE RN DI STR I O F V I G I I CT R N A ROANOK E DI SI VI ON M ETAPH YZI ELC ECTROM AGNETI SUPR EM E- , EL Pe ii tt oner , FI LQD MA 28,26 2 21 JULW C :Y: anl K*7 Ci lA c i N o.7: c 00060 vi ton 16- vM E M O R AN D U M O PI I N N O By: U NI TED STA TE S,e aI, t . R espondent s. . H on.Jacks L.Kie ùn sr Se or U nied St e Di t i tJudge ni t at s s r c M ea t phyz c El e t om ag t Supr m e El a Vi gi a i a e pr e ng pr K ,fl a i -cr ne i e - , r ni nm t oce di o ied Q p tto f rawrto ha e sc r sp ru n t 2 U. C. 2 41t c aln et ej g n eiin o i f b a opu u s a t o 8 S. j 2 o h le g h ud me t e e ed by t Ci c tCout f t Ciy o N or ol Cour r c ds i c t t tPe ii r nt r he r ui ' or he t f f k. t t e or ndi a e ha ttone p e o syfldapeiinu d r28U. C. 2 5 a o thesmej d me ti Su rmeEl rviu l e tto n e S. j 2 4 b u t n u g n n p e - v. Die tr No. 1 c 5 , 01 U. DitLEM S2 6 3 2 3W L 1 3 2 ( D. . a . , r co , 3:4 v 2 2 5 S. s. 5 0 , 01 1 8 46 E. Va M r 3 201 ) a p a ds se 61 F. p' 2 9(t Ci. 01 ) Th s tepeiini a p o raey 5 , p e l imis d, 0 Ap x 7 4 h r 2 5 . u ,h t o s p r p itl t c nsr e a as c e sv ha a p tto p s a t o28U. C. 2 4 a dj2 4 49.S e eg. o tu d s u c s ie be s ei n uru n t i S. 5 25 n 2 41 e . . , W a çl v. p' p C(J, 8 F.d3 4, 8 n. ( t Ci. 01 ) Grg r v. lma 21 F. y l De t f ) . 6 0 3 8 3 6 1 4h r 2 2 ; e o y Co e n, 8 r - Ap x2 6 2 7n. (t Ci. 0 ) Pu s n t 28U. C. 2 41 afd r l itit o t ma p' 6 , 6 * 4 h r 20 7 . rua t o S. j 24 (9, e ea d src c u' y t c i ras ondors ce svej2254peiin o yupons ii c riiai fom aUnie onsde ec uc si tto nl pecfc e tfc ton r td St t sCour ofAppe l t tcli si t s e ntpeii m e tc rai c ie i . Be us ae t a s ha am n he ubs que tton e e t n rt ra ca e Peii rha no s m it a e de et thehasobt i d s h c riia i n fom t Cour ttone s t ub ted ny vi nc ha ane uc e tfc to r he t Supreme-El v. United States et al o Ap e l f rteF u t Cic i, mus ds s t p tto wih u p eu iea s c e sv . f p as o h o rh r utI t imis he ei n t o t rj dc s u c s ie i Doc. 6 Ba e upont fndi t tPe ii rhasnotm a t r quiies t nta s sd he ng ha ttone de he e st ubsa il howi ofade a hg nil ofac tt ina rgh asr uie by28U. C.j225 c) ac riiaeofa lbiiyi onsiuto l i t eq rd S. 3( , e tfc t ppeaa lt s de e ni d. EN TER : TI / -- d ofM a c 201 ay r h, 6. S i rU nie St t s Di t i tJ ge o t d a e s rc ud Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
