Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8660828
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Goldsmith v. Washington
No. 8660828 · Decided April 3, 2008
No. 8660828·Ninth Circuit · 2008·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
April 3, 2008
Citation
No. 8660828
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** On December 27, 2007, this court concluded that, to the extent a certificate of appealability is required in this appeal, the request for a certificate of appealability is denied. By same order, this court determined that, to the extent a certificate of appealability is unnecessary in this case because appellant is a state pretrial detainee, see McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822 , 832 n. 10 (9th Cir.2003), appellant shall show cause as to why the district court’s June 7, 2007, judgment should not be summarily affirmed. *630 A review of appellant’s response to the order to show cause indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court’s judgment. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** On December 27, 2007, this court concluded that, to the extent a certificate of appealability is required in this appeal, the request for a certificate of appealability is denied.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** On December 27, 2007, this court concluded that, to the extent a certificate of appealability is required in this appeal, the request for a certificate of appealability is denied.
02By same order, this court determined that, to the extent a certificate of appealability is unnecessary in this case because appellant is a state pretrial detainee, see McNeely v.
0310 (9th Cir.2003), appellant shall show cause as to why the district court’s June 7, 2007, judgment should not be summarily affirmed.
04*630 A review of appellant’s response to the order to show cause indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** On December 27, 2007, this court concluded that, to the extent a certificate of appealability is required in this appeal, the request for a certificate of appealability is denied.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Goldsmith v. Washington in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on April 3, 2008.
Use the citation No. 8660828 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.