Case: 20-1659 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 07/06/2020
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`For the Federal Circuit
`___________________
`
`JUAN RODRIGUEZ
`Coca Leaf
`
`Appellant
`
`v.
`
`THE COCA-COLA COMPANY
`Coca-Cola
`
`Appellee
`_______________________________________
`
`2020-1659
`__________________________________________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No. 92057485
`_________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING
`Assuming a Motion to stay the Mandate although not warranted to be construed
` as so rehearing denial was premature email with the casequestions@cafc
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`_/JR/
`JUAN RODRIGUEZ
`Appellant
`who@cocaleafwater.com
`/ASUS/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`July 4th, 2020
`
`_______________________________________________________________
`
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1659 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 07/06/2020
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS
`
` Pursuant to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Rules, Appellant hereby
`
`certifies that the following is the complete list of interest persons of this cause:
`
`The Executive Branch
`
`The President of the United States of America
`
`The Department of Commerce
`
`The Legislative Branch
`
`The Senate and House of Representative
`
`The Judiciary Branch
`
`The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`The Trademark Trial Appeal Board
`
`Department of Justice
`
`Jennifer L. Utrecht of the United States
`
`Director of the USPTO
`
`The Appellee
`
`The Coca-Cola Company
`
`The Appellant
`
`Juan Rodriguez
`
`Alberto Solar-Somohano (Who)
`
`_/JR/
`JUAN RODRIGUEZ
`/
`
`
`
`
`
`
` i
`
`
`
`Dated: July 4th, 2020
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1659 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 07/06/2020
`
`
`Certificate of interest…………………………………………………..……………i
`
` TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Table of contents………………………………………………………………...ii-iii
`
`Table of authorities ………………………...……………………………………...iv
`
`Points of facts overlooked by the Court………………………………………..…...1
`
`A.
`
`Juan Rodriguez did respond to the Court’s show cause order and
`also responded to Coke’s motion when not needing in the first place
`
`B.
`
`The motion for relief from judgment was to vacate order of May 13, 2014
`
`
`Points of laws misapprehended by the Court………………………………………1
`
`C.
`
`Copelands’Enters., Inc. v. CNV, Inc., 887 F.2d 1065 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (en banc)
`does not control-it is In re Alappat, 33 F.2d 1526, 31 USPQ2d 1545, (Fed. Cir.
`1994), en banc and In re Wiechert, 370 F.2d 927, 152 USPQ 247 (CCPA 1967)
`
`
`D.
`
`The Board’s order to deferred w/o any force of law so in fact moot any force of
`law to stop or start or end anything only this Court with jurisdiction for everything
`
`Argument…………………………………………………………………...…….2-3
`
`I.
`
`Rodriguez was deprived of his 1st Amendment Right to access the courts with
`
`remedy and his 5th Amendment Right of procedural substantive due process
`
`Did the Panel members forgot they took an oath so help me God
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1659 Document: 20 Page: 4 Filed: 07/06/2020
`
`II.
`
`The Court does not lack what it already had since June 12th, 2014
`Rodriguez came first not Arthrex
`
`
`Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………....4
`
`Addendum
`
`Court order of May 20th, 2020
`Dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction ……………………………...Appx01-03
`
`Judicial Complaint
`……………………………………………………………………...……Appx04-10
`
`Certificate of Service…………………………………………………………….....5
`
`Certificate of Compliance………………………………………………………......6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1659 Document: 20 Page: 5 Filed: 07/06/2020
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Binding Authority
`
`In re Alappat,
`33 F.2d 1526, 31 USPQ2d 1545, (Fed. Cir. 1994), en banc ……………………....3
`
`In re Wiechert,
`370 F.2d 927, 152 USPQ 247 (CCPA 1967)………………..……………………..3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1659 Document: 20 Page: 6 Filed: 07/06/2020
`
`The Court did overlook points of facts and misapprehended points of laws
`
` The Court should re-do this again since obviously the proceeding got
`
`impregnated with prejudice from the very beginning.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1659 Document: 20 Page: 7 Filed: 07/06/2020
`
`ARGUMENTS
`
`I.
`
`Obstruction to Due Process of laws
`
`JUDICIAL COMPLAINT SUBMITTED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1659 Document: 20 Page: 8 Filed: 07/06/2020
`
`II.
`
`On June 12th, 2014 Rodriguez objected as follow:
`
`Supreme Court case of Chambers 501 US 32 (1991) for support when Chambers
`had everything to do with everything but anything about Administrative Agency
`powers to impose sanctions. Obviously the Board’s Panel Members ignored the
`law and should have entertained Brimson, supra if anything about US Supreme
`Court rulings on imposition of sanctions by Administrative Judges and not about
`Federal Judges appointed by the President. Did the Board Panel Members
`forgotten they are not Federal Judges or thinking they got even more power than
`Article III Jurist to do injustice being above the law.
`
` Under In re Alappat, 33 F.2d 1526, 31 USPQ2d 1545, (Fed. Cir. 1994), en banc
`
`and In re Wiechert, 370 F.2d 927, 152 USPQ 247 (CCPA 1967), this Court does
`
`not lack what it already had in fact and obviously the Board deferring ruling w/o
`
`any force of law to even stay anything in the first place. Rodriguez can petition for
`
`writ of mandamus clearly what Alappat and Wiechert said he can.
`
`August 27th, 2014
`
`“The Registrant will be thinking seeing such thing now too late for any available recourse to
`
`complain to Article III jurist to review the decision coming from non-President appointee being
`
`Administrative Judges who are open for attack possibilities of being compromised by those Big
`
`Money Bully Corporation especially the top one here against Respondent Coca-Cola Company”
`
`On August 25th, 2019
`
`JUAN RODRIGUEZ (ASUS) pursuant to TBMP 544 and due to Ryder v. US, 515 US 182
`
`(2003) and In re Alappat, 33 F.2d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994), en banc, moves to vacate the judgment
`
`of the Board enter on May 13, 2014 for being Unconstitutional the Board’s designated panel
`
`members did not consistent of a quorum of principle officers appointed by the President with
`
`advice and consent of the Senate. Polaris Innovations, 2018-1768 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`
` 3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1659 Document: 20 Page: 9 Filed: 07/06/2020
`
`Conclusion
`
` WHEREFORE, since the truth is unstoppable, Solar respectfully requests the
`
`Panel should think again under 28 USC 543 but this time that God ashe.
`
`Filed this 4th day of July 2020
`
`
`_/JR/
`JUAN RODRIGUEZ
`Appellant
`who@cocaleafwater.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1659 Document: 20 Page: 10 Filed: 07/06/2020
`
`
` I hereby certify that the following “opening Brief” was furnished via USPS
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`First Class mail sufficient postage pay email address of record pdf this 4th day of
`
`July 2020 to the interest parties;
`
`Attorney General of the United States
`
` Jennifer L. Utrecht of the United States
`
`Appellee
`
`The Coca-Cola Company
`
`Attorney General of the United States
`
`Thomas Casagrande
`
`United States Patent Trademark Office
`
`Andrei Iancu
`
`Director
`
`HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
`
`
`_/JR/
`JUAN RODRIGUEZ
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1659 Document: 20 Page: 11 Filed: 07/06/2020
`
`Certificate of Compliance
`
` This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Federal Rule of
`
`Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(B) because this brief contains 2,800 words,
`
`excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Rule 32(f). This brief complies with
`
`the typeface requirements of Rule 32(a)(5) and the type-style requirements of Rule
`
`32(a)(6) because this brief has been prepared in proportionally spaced typeface
`
`using Microsoft Word 2010 in 14-point Times New Romain font.
`
`/JR/
`Juan Rodriguez
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1659 Document: 20 Page: 12 Filed: 07/06/2020
`Case:20-1659
`Document: 20
`Page:12
`Filed:07/06/2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ADDENDUM
`ADDENDUM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1659 Document: 20 Page: 13 Filed: 07/06/2020
`
`Case: 20-1659 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 05/20/2020
`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
` ______________________
`
`JUAN RODRIGUEZ,
`
`Appellant
`
` v.
`
`THE COCA-COLA COMPANY,
`
` Appellee
`______________________
`
`2020-1659
` ______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office,
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No. 92057485.
` ______________________
`
`ON MOTION
` ______________________
`
`Before O’MALLEY, WALLACH, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
`
`
` PER CURIAM
`
`
`O R D E R
`
`
`The Coca-Cola Company responds to this court’s show cause order and moves to dismiss this
`appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Juan Rodriguez has not timely responded to either the show cause
`order or the motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“Appx01”
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1659 Document: 20 Page: 14 Filed: 07/06/2020
`
`Case: 20-1659 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 05/20/2020
`
`
`
`2 RODRIGUEZ v. COCA-COLA COMPANY
`
`
`
` In November 2019, Mr. Rodriguez filed at the Trade
` mark Trial and Appeal Board a motion for relief from a
`prior judgment of the Board canceling Mr. Rodriguez’s
`mark. Specifically, that motion contended that the judg
` ment should be vacated because the Board’s judges were
` unconstitutionally appointed. On December 6, 2019, the
` Board ordered that the underlying proceedings be stayed
`pending the outcome of other matters in which the same
` Appointments Clause issue had been raised. Mr. Rodri
` guez appears to be seeking review of that order.
`
` Section 1295(a)(4) of title 28 of the U.S. Code provides
` this court with jurisdiction over “an appeal from a decision
`of . . . the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.”
`Such a decision, under this court’s precedent, must be a “final deci
`sion,” in that it puts an end to the litigation before the
`Board. Copelands’ Enters., Inc. v. CNV, Inc., 887 F.2d
`1065, 1067–68 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (en banc) (citations omit
`ted); see also Int’l Order of Job’s Daughters v. Lindeburg &
` Co., 687 F.2d 436, 437 (CCPA 1982).
`The Board’s order here clearly did not “put an end to the litigation before the
`Board.” Copelands’, 887 F.2d at 1068.
`Rather, it merely deferred consideration of the motion for relief from the judgment until the same
`challenge is decided in other
`cases.
` Because no final, appealable decision has been is
` sued, we must dismiss.
`
` Accordingly,
`
` IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`
` (1) The motion to dismiss is granted. The appeal is
`
` dismissed.
`
`
`
`“Appx02”
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1659 Document: 20 Page: 15 Filed: 07/06/2020
`
`Case: 20-1659 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 05/20/2020
`
`
`
` RODRIGUEZ v. COCA-COLA COMPANY 3
`
` (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
`
` May 20, 2020 FOR THE COURT
` Dated /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
` Peter R. Marksteiner
` Clerk of Court
`s31
`
`ISSUED AS A MANDATE: May 20, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“Appx03”
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1659 Document: 20 Page: 16 Filed: 07/06/2020
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`For the Federal Circuit
`___________________________
`
`COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
`_________________________________________
`
`the Complainant
`
`JUAN RODRIGUEZ
`
`_________________________________________________________
`
`CASE NO. 2020-1659
`____________________________________________
`
`the Subjects
`
`O’MALLEY, WALLACH, STOLL, Circuit Judges; CLERK OF COURT;
`
`SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY: SENIOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANT;
`
`DEPUTY CLERKS & CASE MANAGER
`
`_______________________________________________________________
`
`COMPLAINT UNDER 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364
`______________________________________________
`
`_/JR/
`JUAN RODRIGUEZ
`Appellant/Complainant
`4741 NW 5th Street
`Miami, Fl. 33126
`who@cocaleafwater.com
`(786) 613-2693
`
`
`
`
`July 5th, 2020
`
`__________________________________________________________
`
`
`“Appenx04”
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1659 Document: 20 Page: 17 Filed: 07/06/2020
`
`THE ISSUE
`
` Obstruction to the administration of the appellate process of the Federal Circuit
`
`Court of Appeals Case No. 2020-1659 that was clearly farther from the truth than
`
`just prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of
`
`the courts.
`
`II.
`
`THE ALLEGATIONS
`
` Between May 18th, 2020 and May 26th, 2020, Circuit Judges O’Malley and/or
`
`Wallach and/or Stoll with or and/or together with the Clerk of Court and/or with
`
`the Senior Staff Attorney and/or with the Senior Technical Assistant with and/or
`
`with the Case Manager and/or Deputy Clerks and other known or unknown
`
`knowingly and intentionally recorded wrong docket entries that misdescribed the
`
`pleading being recorded while at the time suppressing other pleadings from entry
`
`into the record by purposely mislabeling the entries as letters and a papers.
`
`III.
`
`AS A MATTER OF FACTS
`
` A. The Docket Record Entries:
`
`On 05/20/2020 at 20:50:53
`
`04/21/2020 5 Entry of appearance for John C. Rawls III as principal counsel for Appellee Coca-
`Cola Company. Service: 04/21/2020 by email, US mail. [688865] [20-1659] [John Rawls]
`[Entered: 04/21/2020 04:00 PM]
`
`
`04/21/2020 6 Certificate of Interest for Appellee Coca-Cola Company. Service: 04/21/2020 by
`email, US mail. [688870] [20-1659] [John Rawls] [Entered: 04/21/2020 04:05 PM]
`2
`“Appenx05”
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1659 Document: 20 Page: 18 Filed: 07/06/2020
`
`04/21/2020 7 Docketing Statement for the Appellee Coca-Cola Company. Service: 04/21/2020
`by email, US mail. [688874] [201659] [John Rawls] [Entered: 04/21/2020 04:08 PM]
`
` 04/21/2020 8 Entry of appearance for Sarah Silbert as of counsel for Appellee Coca-Cola
`Company. Service: 04/21/2020 by email, US mail. [688877] [20-1659] [Sarah Silbert] [Entered:
`04/21/2020 04:11 PM]
`
` 04/22/2020 9 MOTION of Appellee Coca-Cola Company to terminate appeal through dismissal
`for lack of jurisdiction. Cases to be terminated: 20-1659. (Briefing suspended pursuant to FCR
`31 pending resolution of the motion). [Consent: opposed]. Service: 04/22/2020 by email, US
`mail. [689304] [20-1659] [John Rawls] [Entered: 04/22/2020 05:16 PM]
`
`05/18/2020 10 MODIFIED ENTRY: Certificate of Interested Parties for Appellant Juan
`Rodriguez. Service: 05/18/2020 by clerk. [695124]—[Edited 05/18/2020 by MMA] [JCP]
`[Entered: 05/18/2020 06:48 AM]
`
`05/19/2020 11 MODIFIED ENTRY: Amended Certificate of Interested Parties for Appellant
`Juan Rodriguez. Service: 05/19/2020 by clerk. [695508]—[Edited 05/19/2020 by MMA] [JCP]
`[Entered: 05/19/2020 07:11 AM]
`
`05/19/2020 12 Notice from the United States Patent and Trademark Office of non-filing of the
`certified list. Service: 05/18/2020 by email, US mail. [695700] [MMA] [Entered: 05/19/2020
`03:05 PM]
`
` 05/20/2020 13 MODIFIED ENTRY: Letter from Appellant Juan Rodriguez. Service:
`05/20/2020 by clerk. [695797]—[Edited 05/20/2020 by MMA] [JCP] [Entered: 05/20/2020
`06:31 AM]
`
`05/20/2020 14 ORDER filed granting motion to dismiss [9] filed by Appellee Coca-Cola
`Company. The appeal is dismissed. ; issuing mandate. (Per Curiam). Service as of this date by
`the Clerk of Court. [695863] [NL] [Entered: 05/20/2020 10:38 AM]
`
`
`On 06/26/2020 at 03:43:32
`
`05/18/2020 [10] MODIFIED ENTRY: Certificate of Interested Parties for Appellant Juan
`Rodriguez. Service: 05/18/2020 by clerk. [695124]—[Edited 05/18/2020 by MMA] [JCP]
`[Entered: 05/18/2020 06:48 AM]
`
`
`05/19/2020 [11] MODIFIED ENTRY: Amended Certificate of Interested Parties for Appellant
`Juan Rodriguez. Service: 05/19/2020 by clerk. [695508]—[Edited 05/19/2020 by MMA] [JCP]
`[Entered: 05/19/2020 07:11 AM]
`
`
`05/19/2020 [12] Notice from the United States Patent and Trademark Office of non-filing of
`the certified list. Service: 05/18/2020 by email, US mail. [695700] [MMA] [Entered: 05/19/2020
`03:05 PM]
`
`
`3
`“Appenx06”
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1659 Document: 20 Page: 19 Filed: 07/06/2020
`
`05/20/2020 [13] MODIFIED ENTRY: Letter from Appellant Juan Rodriguez. Service:
`05/20/2020 by clerk. [695797]—[Edited 05/20/2020 by MMA] [JCP] [Entered: 05/20/2020
`06:31 AM]
`
`05/20/2020 [14] ORDER filed granting motion to dismiss [9] filed by Appellee Coca-Cola
`Company. The appeal is dismissed. ; issuing mandate. (Per Curiam). Service as of this date by
`the Clerk of Court. [695863] [NL] [Entered: 05/20/2020 10:38 AM]
`
`05/21/2020 [15] LETTER issued in regards to [13] filed by Appellant Juan Rodriguez party
`letter. Service as of this date by the Clerk of Court. [696230] [LMS] [Entered: 05/21/2020 12:25
`PM]
`
`
`On 06/26/2020 at 21:47:32
`
`05/18/2020 10 MODIFIED ENTRY: Certificate of Interested Parties for Appellant Juan
`Rodriguez. Service: 05/18/2020 by clerk. [695124]—[Edited 05/18/2020 by MMA] [JCP]
`[Entered: 05/18/2020 06:48 AM]
`
`05/19/2020 11 MODIFIED ENTRY: Amended Certificate of Interested Parties for Appellant
`Juan Rodriguez. Service: 05/19/2020 by clerk. [695508]—[Edited 05/19/2020 by MMA] [JCP]
`[Entered: 05/19/2020 07:11 AM]
`
`05/19/2020 12 Notice from the United States Patent and Trademark Office of non-filing of the
`certified list. Service: 05/18/2020 by email, US mail. [695700] [MMA] [Entered: 05/19/2020
`03:05 PM]
`05/20/2020 13 MODIFIED ENTRY: Letter from Appellant Juan Rodriguez. Service: 05/20/2020
`by clerk. [695797]—[Edited 05/20/2020 by MMA] [JCP] [Entered: 05/20/2020 06:31 AM]
`
`05/20/2020 14 ORDER filed granting motion to dismiss [9] filed by Appellee Coca-Cola
`Company. The appeal is dismissed. ; issuing mandate. (Per Curiam). Service as of this date by
`the Clerk of Court. [695863] [NL] [Entered: 05/20/2020 10:38 AM]
`
`05/20/2020 17 MODIFIED ENTRY: RESPONSE and TO STRIKE of Appellant Juan Rodriguez
`to the motion to terminate appeal [9] filed by Appellee Coca-Cola Company in 20-1659. Service:
`06/26/2020 by clerk. [703895]—[Edited 06/26/2020 by MMA] [JCP] [Entered: 06/26/2020
`09:58 AM]
`
`05/21/2020 15 LETTER issued in regards to [13] filed by Appellant Juan Rodriguez party letter.
`Service as of this date by the Clerk of Court. [696230] [LMS] [Entered: 05/21/2020 12:25 PM]
`
`06/26/2020 16 MODIFIED ENTRY: Notice from Appellant Juan Rodriguez of obstruction of
`justice. Service: 06/26/2020 by clerk. [703856]—[Edited 06/26/2020 by MMA] [JCP] [Entered:
`06/26/2020 08:56 AM]
`
`
`On 07/06/2020 at 01:53:42
`
` 4
`
`
`“Appenx07”
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1659 Document: 20 Page: 20 Filed: 07/06/2020
`
`05/18/2020 10 MODIFIED ENTRY: Certificate of Interested Parties for Appellant Juan
`Rodriguez. Service: 05/18/2020 by clerk. [695124]—[Edited 05/18/2020 by
`MMA] [JCP] [Entered: 05/18/2020
`
`
`05/19/2020 11 MODIFIED ENTRY: Amended Certificate of Interested Parties for Appellant
`Juan Rodriguez. Service: 05/19/2020 by clerk. [695508]—[Edited 05/19/2020
`by MMA] [JCP] [Entered: 05/19/2020 07:11 AM]
`
`05/19/2020 12 Notice from the United States Patent and Trademark Office of non-filing of
`the certified list. Service: 05/18/2020 by email, US mail. [695700] [MMA]
`[Entered: 05/19/2020 03:05 PM]
`
`05/20/2020 13 MODIFIED ENTRY: Letter from Appellant Juan Rodriguez. Service:
`05/20/2020 by clerk. [695797]—[Edited 05/20/2020 by MMA] [JCP]
`[Entered: 05/20/2020 06:31 AM]
`
`05/20/2020 14 ORDER filed granting motion to dismiss [9] filed by Appellee Coca-Cola
`Company. The appeal is dismissed. ; issuing mandate. (Per Curiam). Service
`as of this date by the Clerk of Court. [695863] [NL] [Entered: 05/20/2020
`10:38 AM]
`
`05/20/2020 17 MODIFIED ENTRY: RESPONSE and TO STRIKE of Appellant Juan
`Rodriguez to the motion to terminate appeal [9] filed by Appellee Coca-Cola
`Company in 20-1659. Service: 06/26/2020 by clerk. [703895]—[Edited
`06/26/2020 by MMA] [JCP] [Entered: 06/26/2020 09:58 AM]
`
`05/21/2020 15 LETTER issued in regards to [13] filed by Appellant Juan Rodriguez party
`letter. Service as of this date by the Clerk of Court. [696230] [LMS] [Entered:
`05/21/2020 12:25 PM]
`
`06/26/2020 16 MODIFIED ENTRY: Notice from Appellant Juan Rodriguez of obstruction of
`justice. Service: 06/26/2020 by clerk. [703856]—[Edited 06/26/2020 by
`MMA] [JCP] [Entered: 06/26/2020 08:56 AM]
`
`06/29/2020 18 MODIFIED ENTRY: Notice-objection from Appellant Juan Rodriguez.
`Service: 06/29/2020 by clerk. [704174]—[Edited 06/29/2020 by MMA] [JCP]
`[Entered: 06/29/2020 08:18 AM]
`
`
` B. Circuit Judges O’Malley, Wallach, Stoll Order of May 20th, 2020 Docket [14]
`
` “The Coca-Cola Company responds to this court’s show cause order and moves
`
`to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Juan Rodriguez has not timely
`
`responded to either the show cause order or the motion”
`
`
`
`5
`
`“Appenx08”
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1659 Document: 20 Page: 21 Filed: 07/06/2020
`
` C. Clerk of Court the Senior Staff Attorney the Senior Technical Assistant
`
`the Case Manager and Deputy Clerks
`
` Complainant pleadings filed on 6/26 & 29, 2020 Dockets 16/18 emergency
`
`declaring tampering and obstruction of justice with attached email communications
`
` D. The Letter of May 21st, 2020
`_____________________________________________________
`
`APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`717 MADISON PLACE, N.W.
`WASHINGTON, D.C. 20439
`
`PETER R. MARKSTEINER CLERK’S OFFICE CLERK OF COURT 202-275-8000
`
`
`May 21, 2020
`
` Juan Rodriguez
`736 SE 8th Place Miami, FL 33010
` Re: Appeal No. 2020-1659, Rodriguez v. The Coca-Cola Company
` Dear Mr. Rodriguez,
`
`This letter is regarding the court’s receipt of your letter dated May 19, 2020.
`
` On May 20, 2020, the court granted The Coca-Cola Company’s motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of
`jurisdiction. To the extent that you wish to seek rehearing of this court’s order, such request must be filed within 45
`days from entry of this court’s judgment.
`
`
`________________________________________________
`
`
`
`Very truly yours,
` /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`
`IV.
`
`THE FINDINGS
`Aa a Matter of Law *
`
`______
`*
` The Complainant is not alleging an incorrect ruling is merits-related though the complainant
`be filing petition for panel rehearing having recourse from that ruling.
` Allegation that is otherwise cognizable under 28 USC 351 should not be dismissed merely
`because an appellate remedy appears to exist.
` When the appellate and misconduct proceedings overlap, and consideration and disposition
`of a complaint under these Rules may be properly deferred by the chief judge until the appellate
`proceedings are concluded to avoid inconsistent decisions.
`
` 6
`
`
`“Appenx09”
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1659 Document: 20 Page: 22 Filed: 07/06/2020
`
`CONCLUSION
`
` The order of May 20th, 2020 at docket [14] by the subject Circuit Judges that
`
`“Juan Rodriguez has not timely responded to either the show cause order or the
`
`motion”, was false so was it knowingly or unknowingly but how is that can’t be
`
`unknowingly unless the 3 panel Judges don’t even do their job as require under 28
`
`USC 453.
`
` Whatever it was it was not kosher no matter what it was in fact prejudicial to
`
`the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.
`
`DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY
`
` I Juan Rodriguez hereby do declare under penalty of perjury that the statements
`
`made in this complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
`
`Dated: July 5th, 2020
`
`/JR/
`JUAN RODRIGUEZ
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`“Appenx10”
`
`