descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

United States v. GREGORY WADE HEMBREE

Citations: 381 F.3d 1109; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 17894; 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 947Docket: 03-16001

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; August 23, 2004; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

On August 23, 2004, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Gregory Wade Hembree's appeal from the Northern District of Florida. The court had previously denied Hembree's motion to file a supplemental brief based on the Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington. In his latest motion, Hembree sought permission to file a substitute principal brief or for reconsideration of the prior order. The court reiterated its precedent, stating that issues not raised in the initial brief cannot be introduced in a supplemental brief. Citing several cases, the court denied Hembree's request for reconsideration and classified his motion to file a substitute brief as an attempt to submit a supplemental brief, which was also denied. The court emphasized that allowing such motions would circumvent established procedural rules.

Legal Issues Addressed

Circumvention of Established Procedural Rules

Application: The court emphasized that allowing motions like Hembree's would undermine established procedural rules.

Reasoning: The court emphasized that allowing such motions would circumvent established procedural rules.

Procedural Rules on Substitute Briefs

Application: Hembree's motion to file a substitute principal brief was classified as an attempt to submit a supplemental brief, which was denied for not adhering to procedural rules.

Reasoning: Citing several cases, the court denied Hembree's request for reconsideration and classified his motion to file a substitute brief as an attempt to submit a supplemental brief, which was also denied.

Prohibition on New Issues in Supplemental Briefs

Application: The court applied its precedent to deny Hembree's motion, emphasizing that new issues cannot be introduced in a supplemental brief if they were not raised in the initial brief.

Reasoning: The court reiterated its precedent, stating that issues not raised in the initial brief cannot be introduced in a supplemental brief.