Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.
The time limit for appealing un-pronounced elements of the sentence is a mandatory claims-processing rule, and since the govt timely requested dismissal, equitable waiver is unavailable. Deft's analogy to appeal waivers inapposite, since in that case, imposition of sentence happens after (otherwise appealable) judgment is issued. Terms of a judgment are presumptively binding, and deft was put on notice of them when judgment issued.
As none of the comparators had records as bad as that of the plaintiff, and all of the other plaintiffs derived their interest from the plaintiff's claim, the issue of pretextual justification doesn't present a question for trial.
Equal Protection claim on behalf of the association to which plaintiff belonged is precluded by Supreme Court precedent as a class-of-one claim given the context of discretionary public employment.
Mere assertion that state officers granted immunity by the district court were acting outside the scope of their duties and not in good faith constitutes a forfeiture of the issue on appeal due to lack of argument.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-50501-CV0.pdf
As the appellant's brief was largely cut and pasted from a trial court filing, appellee awarded damages under the Rules. Award against client, but counsel ordered to pay.
Sanctions for making a frivolous argument at the District Court do not preclude sanctions for filing the same arguments on appeal. Response to appellate sanctions motion needed to be more than a cut and paste from the trial level sanctions filing.
The notice of appeal properly identified the party taking the appeal, the orders that were the subject of the appeal, and the court to which the appeal was being taken; the jurisdictional element of the rules of appeal were satisfied, and since notice was given of intent to appeal all orders, the description of the appellant in the caption as successor in interest to an entity that only accounted for some of the claims was excusable.
As assignment of claim doesn't undo an injury, the claim filed by an entity that had already assigned the interest had sufficient Article III standing; assignment of claim is distinct from grant of power of attorney, which would trigger a prudential limitation on standing.
While choice of law for corporations usually looks to the location of the business, choice of law for partnerships looks to the law of the forum. Questions of state law can be dispositive in the federal standing inquiry.
Although legal capacity of parties isn't a jurisdictional element in standing, existence of the entity is, and since the jurisdiction provided for no wind-up time, the non-existent parties did not have standing at the time the suit was filed.
A suit filed by a non-existent entity is not a nullity; so long as there is a real party in interest willing to join the suit at the time the suit is filed and the real party in interest ratifies, is substituted, or is joined within a reasonable time, there is sufficient subject matter jurisdiction for the action at the time of filing. Since procedural reforms have allowed for nominal parties, this doesn't offend the Constitution. Court retains the right under the rules to deny joinder for equitable reasons. Circuit split flagged on the nullity doctrine.
Equitable tolling is available for new plaintiffs joined to existing class actions.
As the order does not itself finally resolve any question on the merits and the statute provides for a second mechanism, a denial of a certificate of appealability on a motion to set aside the sentence is not a sufficiently final order for purposes of appeal.
Circuit split/tension flagged.