Free USCA Mandate - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 60.9 kB
Pages: 2
Date: April 27, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 517 Words, 3,041 Characters
Page Size: 612.72 x 1008 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/9774/48.pdf

Download USCA Mandate - District Court of Connecticut ( 60.9 kB)


Preview USCA Mandate - District Court of Connecticut
Q Ii ` f Case 3;O()-Cv-011523-PCD Document 48 Filed 04/25/2005
, rg I
III ‘·» ¤* F I I., c;‘If§"i[` I`; e
. _ . _ -¤ —.·- ,4e- ,.,tt3E.=r_..I¤I3.:IIl'.{ or- s.
I I l -II];£$‘¥"“` 0 l I I: I I., E D C I
I I ‘ UNITED E%)I§T2§§ PPEALS ' I
I ` ° FOR HE S OND CI IUIT 2* \ MIIII I] I QIIIIII wl I
I U.S. IlIii1I`Ii`Il‘Eli.Z{ IISIIJRI A @*0, _ _ ed? I
A II 2 ~ ~¢‘¤`* ·, or sg"’”l ’~*¤=*=·**‘“‘”‘ rs I
I RICHARD PARMANAND, It " If " " I COND GIBCU I
I I Plaintiff—Appel1ee—Cross Appellant : DOCKET NO. 03-9073
; VS r DOCKET NO. 03-9333 mh CII, I
I I ‘ : 00..tt- I 133
I CAPEWELL COMPONENTS, LLC : Dovse I-5
I Defendant-Appella11t—Cross Appellant : February 18, 2005
g STIPULATION WITHDRAWING APPEALS FROM ACTIVE CONSIDERATION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE WITH LEAVE TO REACTIVATE I
I I
I a
I The undersigned counsel for the parties sti ulate that the above-ca tioned appeals are
I P P
I I
I hereby withdrawn from active consideration from the Court, such withdrawal to be without .
I prejudice to a reactivation of the appeals by appellant’s counsel or cross—appel1ant’s counsel so
I
notifyin the Clerk of this Court in writing b A ril 15, 2005. Such withdrawal is necessar
. S Y P Y I
I to provide an opportunity for counsel for the appellee-cross appellant to discuss the viability of I
I A I
I any further appeal with their client in light of the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of I
l 5 I
I Internal Revenue v. Banks, 73 USLW 4117, 524 S. Ct. 826 (January 24, 2005). If not I
I reactivated, the appeals shall be deemed withdrawn with prejudice.
I I
I
I
I A rm c r
I"s:-': :.**1: its mir
. » *""4'•'i'¤¤"'I··‘
I _ ’ w nt, } ·.I
I ?
C§·1§f_I;’j=QFIQ=·IFf 1 LI I I SQ I 05/
-
i`i`i‘i‘ ” ‘ "
_ I I I ~ F 1 Us- i;`_ifeiiifgjiek:¥;€--»:-:--1.--;—-;-. p. ;-.;;.

-e-»-A-, - -. A.

I ,~ ‘ y _ _ I
I '“ L I Case 3:00-cv-01I133—PCD Ddeunient 48 _Fi|ecI 04%/2005 Page 2 of 2
I Withdrawal of the appeals from active consideration shall not operate as a dismissal of
the appeals under FRAP 42(b). I __
I »
I I I i
I { W i I
· L! [
Alan E. Lieberman ,_ He {IF. Murr p
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant Atto y for Pla tiff-Appellee ‘ I
—Cross Appellee - ' ross · » e ·. t
Shipman & Goodwin LLP Livingston, Adler, Pulda, Meiklejohn 3
One Constitution Plaza & Kelly, P.C. Q
Hartford, CT 06103-1919 557 Prospect Avenue I
(860) 251-5000 Hartford, CT 06105-2922 I
(860) 233-9821
I Dated: · I
I
I
I
Fos THE counr
SO Ol gpscann B. MacKechnie, Clerk of Court .,
I
rank J. Scardilli, Staff Counsel I
I
I 3 / rj ,, _,»·
I I
I
I gasses v.0l I I
I I
I I
I I