Case: 23-50224 Document: 255 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/11/2024
`
`
`
`No. 23-50224
`In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
`_____________
`
`Leila Green Little; Jeanne Puryear; Kathy Kennedy; Rebecca
`Jones; Richard Day; Cynthia Waring; Diane Moster,
`Plaintiffs-Appellees,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`Llano County; Ron Cunningham, in his official capacity as
`Llano County Judge; Jerry Don Moss, in his official capacity as
`Llano County Commissioner; Peter Jones, in his official
`capacity as Llano County Commissioner; Mike Sandoval, in his
`official capacity as Llano County Commissioner; Linda
`Raschke, in her official capacity as Llano County
`Commissioner; Amber Milum, in her official capacity as Llano
`County Library System Director; Bonnie Wallace, in her
`official capacity as Llano County Library Board Member;
`Rochelle Wells, in her official capacity as Llano County
`Library Board Member; Rhoda Schneider, in her official
`capacty as Llano County Library Board Member; Gay Baskin, in
`her official capacity as Llano County Library Board Member,
`Defendants-Appellants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Western District of Texas
`Case No. 1:22-cv-424-RP
`_____________
`
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
`REPLY TO APPELLEES’ EN BANC SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
`_____________
`
`
`Jonathan F. Mitchell
`Mitchell Law PLLC
`111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400
`Austin, Texas 78701
`(512) 686-3940 (phone)
`(512) 686-3941 (fax)
`jonathan@mitchell.law
`
`Counsel for Defendants-Appellants
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 255 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/11/2024
`
`
`
`The plaintiffs oppose our motion on the ground that the Court’s initial
`
`order for supplemental briefing did not provide for a reply brief. See Pls.’ Re-
`
`sponse, ECF No. 248-2, at 1. But that is par for the course when the Fifth
`
`Circuit grants rehearing en banc. In the last 27 cases that have proceeded to
`
`rehearing en banc in the Fifth Circuit, the initial supplemental-briefing order
`
`requested a reply brief only once, in Tesla v. NLRB, No. 21-60285 (2024). See
`
`Exhibit A. Yet in 10 of those remaining cases the appellants still asked for
`
`leave to file a supplemental reply, and the Court granted the motion in nine
`
`of them. See id. The only time this Court denied such a request was in United
`
`States v. Morton, No. 19-10842 (2021), a criminal case in which the movant
`
`filed a half-page motion that made no attempt to justify his request or explain
`
`why a supplemental reply would be helpful to the Court. See Exhibit B. The
`
`Court summarily denied the motion the next day without awaiting a response
`
`from the government. See Exhibit C. Motions for leave to file supplemental
`
`replies at the en banc stage are routinely granted so long as there is an argu-
`
`ment offered in support, and the failure to provide for a reply in the initial
`
`supplemental-briefing order does not counsel against our request.
`
`The plaintiffs also complain that allowing a supplemental reply will be
`
`“prejudicial” and leave them without “adequate opportunity to prepare a re-
`
`sponse.” See Pls.’ Response, ECF No. 248-2, at 2. But the defendants-
`
`appellants are seeking only to reply to arguments and contentions that al-
`
`ready appear in the plaintiffs’ supplemental brief and the bottom-side amicus
`
`filings. The plaintiffs are also flatly wrong to claim that they “did not advance
`
` 1
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 255 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/11/2024
`
`
`
`any new arguments in their supplemental brief.” Id. at 3. The plaintiffs are
`
`advancing new arguments in defense of Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish
`
`School Board, 64 F.3d 184 (5th Cir. 1995),1 which the defendants (for the first
`
`time) are asking this Court to overrule, and the plaintiffs are arguing (for the
`
`first time) that the defendants “waived” their government-speech argument
`
`by failing to press that argument in courts that were obligated to enforce
`
`Campbell as a binding precedent.2 The defendants-appellants have never had
`
`an opportunity to address the plaintiffs’ arguments defending Campbell or
`
`the claim that the government-speech argument has been waived, and it is
`
`untenable to expect the defendants-appellants to rebut these points solely at
`
`oral argument and without any written submission.
`
`Both sides are making new arguments and contentions at the en banc
`
`stage because the en banc court (unlike the panel and the district court) is not
`
`bound by Campbell, and the defendants-appellants are asking the en banc
`
`Court to overrule Campbell on the ground that library-curating decisions are
`
`government speech. This argument was not previously available to the de-
`
`fendants-appellants because Campbell was binding precedent.3 But the plain-
`
`
`1. See Appellees’ Supplemental En Banc Brief, ECF No. 230, at 39–41.
`2. See Appellees’ Supplemental En Banc Brief, ECF No. 230, at 17–19.
`3. The plaintiffs’ claim that the defendants-appellants “could have fully
`articulated” their arguments for overruling Campbell in their panel-stage
`brief is groundless, as the three-judge panel (and the litigants) were
`bound by Campbell under the rule of orderliness. See Jacobs v. National
`Drug Intelligence Center, 548 F.3d 375, 378 (5th Cir. 2008); Pls.’ Re-
`sponse, ECF No. 248-2, at 2.
`
` 2
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 255 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/11/2024
`
`
`
`tiffs have already seen the defendants-appellants’ arguments for overruling
`
`Campbell and have had an opportunity to rebut them. It is imperative that the
`
`defendants-appellants have an opportunity to address the plaintiffs’ efforts to
`
`buttress Campbell, so that the arguments for and against the overruling of
`
`Campbell are fully vetted before the en banc Court decides whether Campbell
`
`should be retained.
`
`The plaintiffs are also wrong to say that allowing a supplemental reply
`
`would deprive them of “a meaningful opportunity to prepare for the en banc
`
`hearing.” Pls.’ Response, ECF No. 248-2, at 2. The defendants-appellants
`
`have promised to submit their proposed reply by Tuesday, September 17,
`
`2024—seven days before oral argument is held on Tuesday, September 24,
`
`2024.4 That is more than enough time for the plaintiffs to read the brief and
`
`prepare for oral argument, and the Supreme Court of the United States will
`
`leave even less time between the filing of a reply brief and oral argument in
`
`cases with higher stakes than this one.5
`
`
`4. The defendants-appellants are also willing to submit the reply on Mon-
`day, September 16, 2024, as the plaintiffs propose at the end of their mo-
`tion, if the Court so orders, or as a professional courtesy to plaintiffs’
`counsel. See infra, at 7.
`5. The Supreme Court’s briefing order in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jack-
`son, No. 21-463, required reply briefs to be filed one business day before
`oral argument. See United States v. Texas, et al., 142 S. Ct. 14 (Mem.). In
`Trump v. Anderson, No. 23-719, the Court ordered the reply brief filed
`three calendar days before oral argument. See Trump v. Anderson, 144 S.
`Ct. 539 (Mem.).
`
` 3
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 255 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/11/2024
`
`
`
`The plaintiffs recognize that the defendants-appellants have not had an
`
`opportunity to address the Eighth Circuit’s decision in GLBT Youth in Iowa
`
`Schools Task Force v. Reynolds, --- F.4th ---, 2024 WL 3736785 (8th Cir., Au-
`
`gust 9, 2024), but they argue that the defendants-appellants’ should address
`
`this in a Rule 28(j) letter. See Pls.’ Response, ECF No. 248-2, at 2–3. But a
`
`Rule 28(j) letter is limited to 350 words, and that is not enough to address
`
`what is (to our knowledge) the only federal appellate-court decision to weigh
`
`in on the government-speech issue. The Court needs a thorough discussion
`
`of how it should deal with GLBT Youth because its treatment of the Eighth
`
`Circuit’s opinion will affect the certworthiness of this case if either side seeks
`
`further review in the Supreme Court, and the en banc’s Court opinion needs
`
`to make clear whether GLBT Youth should be followed, distinguished, or dis-
`
`agreed with. All of these options and their implications should be thoroughly
`
`vetted, and 350 words is simply not enough given the significance of the
`
`Eighth Circuit’s ruling and the possibility of further Supreme Court review.
`
`The plaintiffs’ piecemeal attacks on the topics for our proposed reply
`
`brief are equally unavailing. See Pls.’ Response, ECF No. 248-2, at 3–8. They
`
`insist that our government-speech argument has been “waived,”6 but the de-
`
`fendants should have an opportunity to rebut the plaintiffs’ wavier argument,
`
`especially when a government-speech argument was incompatible with
`
`Campbell—a case that served as binding precedent in the district court and in
`
`
`6. See Pls.’ Response, ECF No. 248-2, at 3–4.
`
` 4
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 255 Page: 6 Date Filed: 09/11/2024
`
`
`
`the panel-stage proceedings. The plaintiffs cannot ask this Court to assume
`
`the correctness of their waiver argument before we have had an opportunity
`
`to respond to it, and then use that as a reason to deny us the opportunity to
`
`respond. That is a textbook example of begging the question. And in all
`
`events, the defendants could not have asked the Court to overrule Campbell
`
`at the panel stage,7 so there is nothing wrong with asking the en banc Court
`
`to do so now and invoking a government-speech argument in support of that
`
`request.
`
`The plaintiffs also issue a conclusory denial of our accusation that the
`
`statement of facts in their supplemental brief contains “misleading and inac-
`
`curate statements,”8 but that bald assertion is no reason to deny the defend-
`
`ants an opportunity to address what they regard as the falsehoods, half-
`
`truths, and specious assertions that appear throughout the plaintiffs’ sup-
`
`plemental brief. It is especially important that the en banc court have a thor-
`
`ough vetting of the facts when the panel opinion contained so many factual
`
`errors,9 and when the voluminous record in this case makes the risk of court
`
`errors even more salient. To give just one example, the plaintiffs’ oft-
`
`repeated claim that the “Defendants called the books ‘pornographic filth,’”10
`
`is transparently false. The only book that Bonnie Wallace described as “por-
`
`
`
`7. See note 3, supra.
`8. See Pls.’ Response, ECF No. 248-2, at 5.
`9. See Appellants’ Supplemental En Banc Brief, ECF No. 205-2, at 3–10.
`10. Appellees’ Supplemental En Banc Brief, ECF No. 230, at 4.
`
` 5
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 255 Page: 7 Date Filed: 09/11/2024
`
`
`
`nographic filth” was Gender Queer, which is not one of the 17 disputed books
`
`and was never housed in the Llano County library system. None of the other
`
`defendants ever used the phrase “pornographic filth” to describe anything,
`
`and none of the 17 disputed books were described as “pornographic filth” by
`
`any of the defendants. Yet the plaintiffs continue to peddle this and other
`
`falsehoods in their supplemental brief, which the defendants should have an
`
`opportunity to rebut.
`
`Finally, the plaintiffs’ attempt to deny their recent concessions that (1)
`
`content discrimination is now permissible in public-library weeding deci-
`
`sions, and (2) public librarians should have carte blanche when selecting (as
`
`opposed to removing) library materials11 is all the more reason to authorize
`
`additional briefing. The plaintiffs have indisputably changed their position
`
`and are advancing different arguments from what they pursued at the panel
`
`stage12—and for good reason, as even the lead panel opinion was unwilling to
`
`adopt the plaintiffs’ now-abandoned claim that the First Amendment bans
`
`content discrimination in public-library weeding decisions. See Lead Panel
`
`Op., ECF No. 164, at 12 (“[C]ontent is necessarily relevant in removal deci-
`
`
`11. See Pls.’ Response, ECF No. 248-2, at 6–7; id. at 7 (“Plaintiffs made no
`such concession”).
`12. Compare Appellees’ Panel-Stage Br., ECF No. 99, at 19 (“The First
`Amendment Prohibits Removal of Library Books Based on Viewpoint or
`Content-Based Discrimination”) (emphasis added), with Appellees’
`Supplemental En Banc Brief, ECF No. 230, at 39 (“If a librarian re-
`moves a book for any reason other than viewpoint animus, the First
`Amendment has nothing to say about it.” (emphasis added)).
`
` 6
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 255 Page: 8 Date Filed: 09/11/2024
`
`
`
`sions”). The defendants have had no opportunity to address the new First
`
`Amendment theory that appears in the plaintiffs’ supplemental brief, in
`
`which only viewpoint discrimination (and not content discrimination) is
`
`banned when public librarians weed books, and in which this ban on view-
`
`point discrimination in library weeding decisions is coupled with a rule that
`
`gives public librarians an entirely free hand when selecting library materials.
`
`The plaintiffs’ attempt to obfuscate rather than forthrightly acknowledge
`
`their change in position counsels in favor of granting the defendants-
`
`appellants’ request, as the plaintiffs are trying to create a moving target while
`
`denying the defendants an opportunity to shoot at their current location.
`
`* * *
`
`The plaintiffs are also asking the Court to allow them to file a brief re-
`
`sponding to the reply if Court grants the defendants-appellants’ motion. We
`
`do not oppose this request if the Court decides that an additional brief from
`
`the plaintiffs would be helpful. The defendants-appellants are also willing to
`
`file their reply brief on Monday, September 16, 2024, rather than Tuesday,
`
`September 17, 2024, to accommodate the briefing schedule proposed by the
`
`plaintiffs.
`
`We do, however, oppose the plaintiffs’ request to limit the reply to 1,050
`
`words. 1,050 words is not nearly enough to address the issues described in
`
`our motion, and we could not find any previous en banc proceeding in which
`
`this Court imposed a word limit of that sort on a supplemental en banc reply.
`
` 7
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 255 Page: 9 Date Filed: 09/11/2024
`
`
`
`Conclusion
`
`The defendants-appellants’ motion for leave to file an supplemental en
`
`banc reply should be granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 11, 2024
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted.
`
` /s/ Jonathan F. Mitchell
`Jonathan F. Mitchell
`Mitchell Law PLLC
`111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400
`Austin, Texas 78701
`(512) 686-3940 (phone)
`(512) 686-3941 (fax)
`jonathan@mitchell.law
`
`Counsel for Defendants-Appellants
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 255 Page: 10 Date Filed: 09/11/2024
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`I certify that this reply brief in support of motion complies with the type-
`
`volume limitations of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(d)(2). The
`
`document was prepared in 14-point Equity font, and it contains 1,895 words.
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Jonathan F. Mitchell
`Jonathan F. Mitchell
`Counsel for Defendants-Appellants
`
`
`
` 9
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 255 Page: 11 Date Filed: 09/11/2024
`
`
`
`Ryan A. Botkin
`Katherine P. Chiarello
`María Amelia Calaf
`Botkin Chiarello Calaf
`1209 Nueces Street
`Austin, Texas 78701
`(512) 960-4730 (phone)
`(512) 960-4869 (fax)
`katherine@bccaustin.com
`ryan@bccaustin.com
`mac@bccaustin.com
`
`
`Certificate Of Service
`I certify that on September 11, 2024, this document was electronically
`filed with the clerk of the court for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
`Circuit and served through CM/ECF upon:
`
`Matthew Borden
`J. Noah Hagey
`Marissa Benavides
`Kory James DeClark
`BraunHagey & Borden LLP
`351 California Street, 10th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`(415) 599-0210
`borden@braunhagey.com
`hagey@braunhagey.com
`benavides@braunhagey.com
`declark@braunhagey.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Jonathan F. Mitchell
`
` Jonathan F. Mitchell
` Counsel for Defendants-Appellants
`
` 10
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 255 Page: 12 Date Filed: 09/11/2024
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit A
`
`(Chart Showing Past Requests for Supplemental Replies
`at the En Banc Stage)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 255 Page: 13 Date Filed: 09/11/2024
`
`Supplemental Reply Briefs Before En Banc Fifth Circuit
`
`Case Name
`
`Petteway v. Galveston
`County (2024) (23-40582)
`Alliance for Fair Board
`Recruitment v. FEC (2024)
`(21-60626)
`USA v. Abbott (2024) (23-
`50632)
`Wilson v. Midland County
`(2024) (22-50998)
`Chisom v. Louisiana (2024)
`(22-30320)
`Hopkins v. Watson (2024)
`(19-60662)
`B.W. v. Austin Independent
`School District (2024) (22-
`50158)
`USA v. Victor Campos-
`Ayala (2024) (21-50642)
`Jackson Municipal Airport v.
`Harkins (2024) (21-60312)
`Tesla v. NLRB (2024) (21-
`60285)
`Consumers’ Research v.
`FCC (2023) (22-60008)
`Crawford v. Cain (2023)
`(20-61019)
`Env. Tx. Citizen Lobby v.
`ExxonMobil (2023) (17-
`20545)
`Wages and White Lion
`Invest v. FDA (2023) (21-
`60766)
`
`Did Court
`Initially
`Provide for a
`Supplemental
`Reply?
`
`No
`
`Was There a
`Motion for
`Leave to File a
`Supplemental
`Reply?
`Not made
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`Yes
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`Yes
`
`Not made
`
`Not made
`
`Not made
`
`Not made
`
`Not made
`
`Yes
`
`Not made
`
`N/A
`
`Not made
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Not in initial
`order
`
`Not found in
`docket. The reply
`is first mentioned
`in 3/24/2023
`filing of
`Respondent’s
`supplemental
`briefing. The
`
`Was the Motion
`Granted?
`
`N/A
`
`Yes
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`Yes
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 255 Page: 14 Date Filed: 09/11/2024
`
`court may have
`granted leave for
`reply sua sponte
`based on new
`arguments
`presented in
`respondent’s
`briefing.
`No
`
`No
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`No
`
`Yes (motion
`included a motion
`for extended
`time)
`Not Requested
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`N/A
`
`No
`
`N/A
`
`Not requested
`
`N/A
`
`Not Requested
`
`N/A
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Not Requested
`
`N/A
`
`Not Requested
`
`N/A
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Hamilton v. Dallas County
`(2023) (21-10133)
`USA v. Vargas (2023) (21-
`20140)
`Villarreal v. City of Laredo
`(2023) (20-40359)
`Cargill v. Garland (2022)
`(20-51016)
`Feds for Medical Freedom v.
`Biden (2022) (22-40043)
`United States v. Morton
`(2021) (19-10842)
`
`Douglass v. Nippon Yusen
`Kabushiki (2021) (20-
`30382)
`Daves v. Dallas County
`(2021) (18-11368)
`Hewitt v. Helix Energy
`Solutions Group, Inc.
`(2021) (19-20023)
`United States v. Dubin
`(2021) (19-50912)
`Whole Woman's Health v.
`Ken Paxton (2021) (17-
`51060)
`Sanchez v. Smart Fabricators
`of Texas (2021) (19-20506)
`Cochran v. SEC (2021)
`(19-10396)
`
`
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 255 Page: 15 Date Filed: 09/11/2024
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit B
`
`(Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Reply in United
`States v. Morton, No. 19-10842 (2021))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 19-10842 Document: 165 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/23/2021
`Case: 23-50224 Document: 255 Page: 16 Date Filed: 09/11/2024
`
`In the United States Court of Appeals
`For the Fifth Circuit
`
`
`United States of America,
`
`Plaintiff-Appellee,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Brian Matthew Morton,
`
`
`Defendant-Appellant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Case No. 19-10842
`
`Appellant’s Opposed Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief
`
`Appellant Brian Matthew Morton respectfully moves for leave to file a reply
`
`brief of not more than 12 pages by this Friday, August 27, 2021.
`
`In support of this Motion, counsel would show the Court as follows:
`
`1. If granted leave to file a reply, Mr. Morton will not rehash the opening brief
`
`but will only address arguments presented in the government’s supplemental brief.
`
`2. Mr. Morton will file a shorter brief than a typical reply, with an argument
`
`section of not more than 12 pages or 3,500 words, whichever is smaller.
`
`3. Mr. Morton will file the short reply this week, on Friday, August 27, 2021,
`
`which gives ample time before the oral argument setting of September 21, 2021.
`
`4. Mr. Morton proposes a short reply, filed soon, in order to accommodate and
`
`ameliorate the government’s timeframe concerns. If granted, Mr. Morton believes that
`
`the government will not be prejudiced.
`
`

`

`Case: 19-10842 Document: 165 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/23/2021
`Case: 23-50224 Document: 255 Page: 17 Date Filed: 09/11/2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Brandon Beck
`Assistant Federal Public Defender
`1205 Texas Ave. #507
`Lubbock, TX 79401
`brandon_beck@fd.org
`806.472.7236
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`I filed this motion via ECF on August 23, 2021. Opposing counsel, a registered
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`filer, is deemed served.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Brandon Beck
`
`
`
`
`
`Certificate of Conference
`
`I conferred via E-Mail with AUSA Amber Grand. The Government opposes
`
`this Motion for two reasons: (1) this Court’s briefing order does not permit a reply;
`
`(2) the timeframe before argument is too short.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Brandon Beck
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 19-10842 Document: 165 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/23/2021
`Case: 23-50224 Document: 255 Page: 18 Date Filed: 09/11/2024
`
`Certificate of Compliance
`
`This document complies with the type-volume limit of Fed. R. App. P.
`
`1.
`
`27(d)(2)(A) because this document contains 344 words.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`This document complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App.
`
`P. 32(a)(5) and the type-style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because this
`
`document has been prepared in proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word
`
`2016 in 14-point Goudy Old Style font.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Brandon Beck
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 255 Page: 19 Date Filed: 09/11/2024
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit C
`
`(Court Order Denying Motion for Leave to File
`Supplemental Reply in United States v. Morton, No. 19-
`10842 (2021)))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 19-10842 Document: 167-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/24/2021
`Case: 23-50224 Document: 255 Page: 20 Date Filed: 09/11/2024
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`
`
`LYLE W. CAYCE
`CLERK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIFTH CIRCUIT
`OFFICE OF THE CLERK
`
`
`
`TEL. 504-310-7700
`600 S. MAESTRI PLACE,
`Suite 115
`NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130
`
`
`August 24, 2021
`
`MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES LISTED BELOW:
`
`
`No. 19-10842
`USA v. Morton
`
`
`
`
`USDC No. 4:19-CR-17-1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Enclosed is an order entered in this case.
`
`
`
` Sincerely,
`
` LYLE W. CAYCE, Clerk
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` By: _________________________
` Mary Frances Yeager, Deputy Clerk
` 504-310-7686
`
`Mr. Charles Baruch
`Mr. Brandon Elliott Beck
`Mrs. Amber Michelle Grand
`Ms. Jennifer Lynch
`Ms. Leigha Amy Simonton
`
`
`

`

`Case: 19-10842 Document: 167-2 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/24/2021
`Case: 23-50224 Document: 255 Page: 21 Date Filed: 09/11/2024
`
`
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Fifth Circuit
` ___________
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 19-10842
` ___________
`
`
`United States of America,
`
`
`
`
`versus
`
`Plaintiff—Appellee,
`
`
`Brian Matthew Morton,
`
`
`Defendant—Appellant.
` ______________________________
`
`
`
`
`ORDER:
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Northern District of Texas
`USDC No. 4:19-CR-17-1
` ______________________________
`
`IT IS ORDERED that Appellant’s opposed motion for leave to file
`supplemental reply brief and for an extension until August 27, 2021 to file
`supplemental reply brief is DENIED.
`
`
` LYLE W. CAYCE, CLERK
` United States Court of Appeals
` for the Fifth Circuit
` /s/ Lyle W. Cayce
`
` ENTERED AT THE DIRECTION OF THE COURT
`
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

HTTP Error 400: Found

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket