Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 2013

United States v. Hite

United States v. Hite
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided October 24, 2013 · Rogers, Srinivasan, Tatel
540 F. App'x 2

Counsel

Patricia Ann Heffernan, Elizabeth Tros-man, Esquire, USAO Appellate Counsel, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Appellee., Lawrence Robbins, Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP, Barry J. Pollack, Miller & Chevalier Chartered, Washington, DC, for Appellant.

United States v. Hite

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the motion for release pending appeal filed by appellant, the memorandum of law and fact filed by appellee, and the reply. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed July 30, 2013, be affirmed. Appellant has not “clearly shown that there are exceptional reasons why [his] detention would not be appropriate.” 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c). We express no opinion whether appellant has satisfied the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The *3Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.