Cox v. United States, 585 U.S. ___ (2018)

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 16–1017

_________________

LAITH G. COX, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES

COURTNEY A. CRAIG, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES

ANDREW K. LEWIS, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES

IAN T. MILLER, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES

JOSEPH D. MORCHINEK, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES

KELVIN L. O’SHAUGHNESSY, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the armed forces

[June 22, 2018]

Per Curiam.

The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.

It is so ordered.

February 21, 2017 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 27, 2017)
March 22, 2017 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including April 26, 2017.
April 19, 2017 Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including May 15, 2017.
May 15, 2017 Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
May 19, 2017 Reply of petitioner Laith G. Cox filed. VIDED.
September 6, 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/25/2017.
September 28, 2017 Petition GRANTED, and the petitions for writs of certiorari in Nos. 16-961 and 16-1423 are granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. In addition to the questions presented by the petitions, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: Whether this Court has jurisdiction to review the cases in Nos. 16-961 and 16-1017 under 28 U. S. C. ยง 1259(3).
November 7, 2017 Joint appendix filed. VIDED. (Statement of costs filed)
November 7, 2017 Brief of petitioners filed. VIDED.
November 14, 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Aditya Bamzai in support of neither party filed. VIDED.
November 17, 2017 SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, January 16, 2018. VIDED
November 22, 2017 CIRCULATED.
December 7, 2017 Brief of respondent United States filed. VIDED.
December 14, 2017 Motion of Aditya Bamzai for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed. VIDED.
December 18, 2017 Record requested from the U.S.C.A for the Armed Forces.
January 5, 2018 Motion of Professor Aditya Bamzai for enlargement of time for oral argument, for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED, and the time is divided as follows: 30 minutes for petitioners, 10 minutes for Professor Aditya Bamzai, and 30 minutes for respondent. VIDED
January 5, 2018 Reply of petitioner Laith G.Cox filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
January 8, 2018 Record received from the U.S.C.A. for the Armed Forces. (2 Boxes). Box 2 of 2 is SEALED.
January 10, 2018 Letter of respondent United States filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
January 16, 2018 Argued. For petitioners: Stephen I. Vladeck, Austin, Tex. For Professor Aditya Bamzai as amicus curiae: Aditya Bamzai, Charlottesville, VA. For respondent: Brian H. Fletcher, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. VIDED.
June 22, 2018 Writ of certiorari DISMISSED as improvidently granted. Opinion per curiam.
June 25, 2018 The record from the Department of the Army has been returned.
July 24, 2018 JUDGMENT ISSUED.
Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.