United States v. Albert Nicks, 872 F.2d 496 (D.C. Cir. 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Albert Nicks, 872 F.2d 496 (D.C. Cir. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
33 citation events (24 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Mitchell v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n (cadc, 2018-01-31)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Mitchell v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n
D.C. Cir. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Kaempfer v. Brown , 684 F.Supp. 319 , 321 (D.D.C. 1988), aff'd , 872 F.2d 496 (D.C.
cited Cited "see" Mitchell v. U.S. Bank National Association
D.D.C. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Kaempfer v. Brown, 684 F. Supp. 319, 321 (D.D.C. 1988), aff’d, 872 F.2d 496 (D.C.
cited Cited "see" Unitronics (1989) (R\G) Ltd. v. Gharb"
D.D.C. · 2015 · signal: accord · confidence high
In re Powell, 851 F.2d at 431 ; accord Kaempfer v. Brown, 872 F.2d 496 (D.C.Cir.1989).
cited Cited "see" Unitronics (1989) (R\G) Ltd. v. Gharb"
D.D.C. · 2015 · signal: accord · confidence high
In re Powell, 851 F.2d at 431 ; accord Kaempfer v. Brown, 872 F.2d 496 (D.C.Cir.1989).
cited Cited "see" Unitronics (1989) (R\G) Ltd. v. Gharb"
D.D.C. · 2015 · signal: accord · confidence high
In re Powell, 851 F.2d at 431 ; accord Kaempfer v. Brown, 872 F.2d 496 (D.C.Cir.1989).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Arnold v. Secretary of the Navy
D.D.C. · 2020 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Kaempfer v. Brown, 684 F. Supp. 319 , 325–36 (D.D.C. 1988) (imposing pre-filing injunction on counseled parties where they had harassed a bank attempting to develop property), aff’d 872 F.2d 496 (D.C.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Caldwell v. Obama
D.D.C. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence low
Second, the court must develop a record for review “in order to further ensure that the filer’s due process rights are not violated.” Rodriguez, 844 F.Supp.2d at 15 ; see also Kaempfer v. Brown, 872 F.2d 496 , 496 (D.C.Cir.1989) (citing Powell, 851 F.2d at 431 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Albert Nicks
88-3080.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Apr 24, 1989.
872 F.2d 496
Unpublished

872 F.2d 496

277 U.S.App.D.C. 61

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
UNITED STATES of America
v.
Albert NICKS, Appellant.

No. 88-3080.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

April 24, 1989.

Before WALD, Chief Judge, SPOTTSWOOD W. ROBINSON, III and D.H. GINSBURG, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

1

This case was considered on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for a published opinion. See D.C.Cir. Rule 14(c). It is

2

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court's order filed May 16, 1988, be summarily affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in that court's memorandum and order. To the extent that Nick's claim differs from his allegations in the district court, i.e., he was "constantly deceived and told false information ... that no detainers existed against him from Virginia," see Nick's Brief at 6-7, we find that he has failed to clear the "higher hurdle" set for him by his failure to raise this issue on direct appeal. See United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 166, 168 (1982) (appellant must show both cause excusing his failure to raise the issue on direct appeal and " 'actual prejudice' resulting from the errors of which he complains").

3

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir. Rule 15.