joshua james cooley

I join the opinion of the Court on the understanding that it holds no more than the following: On a public right-of-way that traverses an Indian reservation and is primarily patrolled by tribal police, a tribal police officer has the authority to (a) stop a non-Indian motorist if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the motorist may violate or has violated federal or state law, (b) conduct a search to the extent necessary to protect himself or others, and (c) if the tribal officer has probable cause, detain the motorist for the period of time reasonably necessary for a non-tribal officer to arrive on the scene. It reasoned that a tribal police officer could stop (and hold for a reasonable time) a non-Indian suspect if the officer first tries to determine whether the suspect is non-Indian and, in the course of doing so, finds an apparent violation of state or federal law. View Joshua Reese Cooley results including current phone number, address, relatives, background check report, and property record with Whitepages. 200 U.S. 321, 337. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit, No. Saylor also saw in the truck a glass pipe and a plastic bag that contained methamphetamine. UNITED STATES V. JOSHUA JAMES COOLEY 3 Washington, D.C. Tuesday, March 23, 2021, the above-entitled matter came on for oral argument before the Supreme Court of the United States at 10:00 a.m.APPEARANCES: ERIC J. FEIGIN, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; on behalf of the Petitioner. Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 24, 2020 to August 24, 2020, submitted to The Clerk. When the jurisdiction to try and punish an offender rests outside the tribe, tribal officers may exercise their power to detain the offender and transport him to the proper authorities; the authority to search that individual before transport is ancillary to that authority. Conversely, defense attorney Eric R. Henkel(we will refer to him as Henkel or the respondents attorney from here) said the officer was enforcing non-tribal laws that had nothing to do with a tribal interest and argued that the Crow tribe exceeded its authority.. Reply of petitioner United States filed. Brief amici curiae of National Indigenous Women's Resource Center, et al. Respond ent Joshua James Cooley respectfully re-quests that this ourt affirmC the judgment of the United States Cour t of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A). The second requirementthat the violation of law be apparentintroduces a new standard into search and seizure law. Reply of petitioner United States filed. REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITION; This case does not present an important question . Record from the U.S.C.A. OPINIONS BELOW The opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. However, the where andthe who are of profound import. First, we said that a tribe may regulate, through taxation, licensing, or other means, the activities of nonmembers who enter consensual relationships with the tribe or its members, through commercial dealing, contracts, leases, or other arrangements. Ibid. The Ninth Circuit panel wrote that tribes cannot exclude non-Indians from a state or federal highway and lack the ancillary power to investigate non-Indians who are using such public rights-of-way. 919 F.3d 1135, 1141 (2019). The case involves roadside assistance, drug crimes, and the Crow people. United States of America . Saylor made no additional attempt to find out whether Cooley was an Indian or not. Brief of respondent Joshua James Cooley in opposition filed. Main Document Certificate of Word Count Proof of Service. You can explore additional available newsletters here. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. Policy Center filed. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/20/2020. The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in United States v. Joshua James Cooley, No. filed. UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. JOSHUA JAMES COOLEY, on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit. Joshua James Cooley in the US . Cooley adds that federal cross-deputization statutes already grant many Indian tribes a degree of authority to enforce federal law. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. If left untouched, the brief argued, the Ninth Circuit standard would be nearly impossible to implement consistently and would serve only to incentivize criminals to lie about their identity. brother. 0 Rate Joshua. to Pet. Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 24, 2020 to August 24, 2020, submitted to The Clerk. Brief amici curiae of The Ninth Circuit Federal Public and Community Defenders filed. Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 435 U.S. 191, 212 (1978). View Joshua Kenneth Cooley results including current phone number, address, relatives, background check report, and property record with Whitepages. Believing the occupants might need assistance, Saylor approached the truck and spoke to the driver, Joshua James Cooley. However, VAWA 2013 directly contradicts this assertion because in VAWA 2013, Congress unmistakably acted to close jurisdictional loopholes by restoring the ability of Tribal Nations to exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians for crimes of domestic violence, dating violence, and criminal violations of protective orders. Waiver of the 14-day waiting period under Rule 15.5 filed. 495 U.S. 676, 687688 (1990); Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation, And we hold the tribal officer possesses the authority at issue. . 554 U.S. 316, 330, this case does not raise that concern due to the close fit between Montanas second exception and the facts here. mother. The cop was Crow Highway Safety Officer James Saylor, and the driver was Joshua Cooley, a non-Indian. According to Saylor, he saw that Cooley was a non-Indian at the point when he first saw Cooley through the car window. Cf. Held:A tribal police officer has authority to detain temporarily and to search non-Indian persons traveling on public rights-of-way running through a reservation for potential violations of state or federal law. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship. Finally, the Court doubts the workability of the Ninth Circuits standards, which would require tribal officers first to determine whether a suspect is non-Indian and, if so, to temporarily detain a non-Indian only for apparent legal violations. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. (Distributed), Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed. At the same time, because most of those who live on Indian reservations are non-Indians, this problem of interpretation could arise frequently. Brief amicus curiae of Indian Law Scholars and Professors filed. Join Mailing List The unworkable standard the Ninth Circuit created would have significantly impaired the ability of Tribal law enforcement to address crimes of domestic violence and assaults perpetrated by non-Indians in Tribal communities. Though the Ninth Circuit decision threatened to impede the work of the NIWRC and other advocates of increased Tribal criminal jurisdiction, the Cooley decision is a welcome reminder that the NIWRCs VAWA Sovereignty Initiative constitutes a powerful tool for educating members of the United States Highest Court on the critical relationship between sovereignty and safety for Native women. (Distributed). SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, March 23, 2021. He called tribal and county officers for assistance. filed. 508 U.S. 679, 694696 (1993); Duro v. Reina, 492 U.S. 408, 426430 (1989) (plurality opinion). In short, we see nothing in these provisions that shows that Congress sought to deny tribes the authority at issue, authority that rests upon a tribes retention of sovereignty as interpreted by Montana, and in particular its second exception. filed. Henkel argued there isnt a remedy beyond exclusion of evidence, which appeared to be the answer Gorsuch was looking for. We have subsequently repeated Montanas proposition and exceptions in several cases involving a tribes jurisdiction over the activities of non-Indians within the reservation. (Distributed). Tribal police officers have authority to detain temporarily and to search non-Indian persons traveling on public rights-of-way running through a reservation for potential violations of state or federal law; they are not required to first determine whether a suspect is non-Indian and, if so, to temporarily detain a non-Indian only for apparent legal violations. Emailus. The Cheyenne people and cultural lifeways are beautiful and thriving here. Similarly, we recognized in Duro that [w]here jurisdiction to try and punish an offender rests outside the tribe, tribal officers may exercise their power to detain the offender and transport him to the proper authorities. 495 U.S., at 697. On June 1, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a decision overturning the Ninth Circuits decision, and ultimately, upholding the inherent authority of Tribal Nations to stop and detain individuals on a reservation when reasonable suspicion arises that they have committed a crimeregardless of whether they are Indian. Pursuant to Rule 39 and 18 U.S.C. Generally, the inherent sovereign powers of an Indian tribe do not extend to the activities of nonmembers of the tribe, but a tribe retains inherent authority over the conduct of non-Indians on the reservation when that conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the health or welfare of the tribe. Alito, J., filed a concurring opinion. Main Document Proof of Service: Oct 22 2020: Waiver of the 14-day waiting period under Rule 15.5 filed. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/13/2020. Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 24, 2020. filed. Saylor saw a truck parked on the westbound side of the highway. Waiver of the 14-day waiting period under Rule 15.5 filed. 450 U.S. 544, 565. Brief amicus curiae of Indian Law Scholars and Professors filed. Sign up to receive a daily email Henkel eventually said the first question to answer in each scenario should be whether or not the would-be detained person is subject to tribal authority. W A I V E R . . Amicus brief of Citizens Equal Rights Foundation not accepted for filing. Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 24, 2020. (Corrected brief submitted - March 22, 2021). Picking up on Thomass questionsregarding heinous crimes, Alito later pressed Henkel on a slippery slope argument that questioned what the standard should be for if and when an Indian tribal officer has any authority to intervene against a non-Indian whatsoever. The District Court agreed with Cooleys argument and found it is unreasonable for a Tribal police officer to seize a non-Indian suspect on a public right of way that crosses the reservation unless there is an apparent state or federal law violation. Even though the officer observed that Cooleys eyes were bloodshot and watery, and two firearms were in plain view in his truck, the District Court concluded that none of these factors individually, or cumulatively, were enough to constitute an obvious state or federal law violation, and therefore the Tribal officer had no authority to seize the contraband. Speakers Bureau 1a-21a) is reported at 919 F.3d 1 The ord135.er of the court of appeals denying pan el rehear ing and rehear- . While the driver talked, he allegedly began pulling wads of cash from his pockets, which the officer says alarmed him. Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 24, 2020. Joshua James Cooley was parked in his pickup truck on the side of a road within the Crow Reservation in Montana when Officer James Saylor of the Crow Tribe approached his truck in the early hours of the morning. or via email. The other officers, including an officer with the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs, then arrived. Joshua Cooley, 33 Resides in Houston, TX Lived In Spring TX Related To Ashley Cooley, Benjamin Cooley, Jozelle Cooley, Thomas Cooley Also known as Josh Cooley, Cooley Josh Includes Address (2) Phone (1) Email (1) See Results Joshua Blake Cooley, 37 Resides in Colorado Springs, CO Lived In Lubbock TX Related To Nathanael Cooley View More. Saylors search and detention, however, do not subsequently subject Cooley to tribal law, but rather only to state and federal laws that apply whether an individual is outside a reservation or on a state or federal highway within it. Joshua Cooley was in the driver's seat and was accompanied by a child. Supreme Court Case No . Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. (Response due July 24, 2020). Cooley, charged with drug and gun offenses, successfully moved to suppress the drug evidence. Whether, or how, that standard would be met is not obvious. 9th Circuit. Throughout the Petition, the government repeatedly conflates the power to detain and transport with the power to detain, investigate, and generally police. Record requested from the U.S.C.A. Facebook gives people the power to. In answering this question, our decision in Montana v. United States, Joshua Cooley January 24, 2020 in Uncategorized tagged BIA Cases by biahelp FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. Motion to appoint counsel filed by respondent Joshua James Cooley. Because many reservations are home to a predominantly non-Indian population, including many of the 26 VAWA-implementing Tribal Nations, the Ninth Circuits unworkable standard for Tribal law enforcement in effectuating stops of non-Indians suspected of committing a crime on reservations threatened to jeopardize Native womens safety further. Legal Briefing United States Of America, Petitioner V. Joshua James Cooley, Respondent Abstract: BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF THE CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS, AND OTHER TRIBAL ORGANIZATIONS Download PDF Ancillary to the authority to transport a non-Indian suspect is the authority to search that individual prior to transport, as several state courts and other federal courts have held. (Due October 15, 2020). Brief amici curiae of Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, et al. In issuing a standard which would force Tribal law enforcement to wait until domestic violence became apparent or obvious to execute a search, the Ninth Circuits decision threatened the lives of Native women. RESOURCES Genealogy for Joshua Cooley (1798 - 1880) family tree on Geni, with over 230 million profiles of ancestors and living relatives. Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who like Alito, was mostly skeptical of the way the government framed their argument, was extremely hostile to the respondents attorney and asked why, if Indian tribes are not adjuncts of U.S. law via deputization and are not sovereign, they are subject to the Fourth Amendments exclusionary rule. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. (Distributed). In April 2016, a federal grand jury indicted Cooley on drug and gun offenses. The Crow Nation led dozens of Tribal amici curiae in support of the United States petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED. Response Requested. Joshua James Cooley, Joshua J Cooley. See 2803(3). SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, March 23, 2021. After communicating with Cooley, Officer Saylor detained him and conducted a search of the truck. Saylor also noticed two semiautomatic rifles lying on the front seat. 492 U.S. 408, 425 (plurality opinion), and here Montanas second exception recognizes that inherent authority. Martha Patsey Stewart. The NIWRC filed an amicus brief in support of the United States as part of its VAWA Sovereignty Initiative, arguing that if the Ninth Circuits decision was allowed to stand, it would significantly impair the ability of Tribal law enforcement to address domestic violence crimes perpetrated by non-Indians in Tribal communities, and ultimately if left unturned, the Ninth Circuits decision would only exacerbate the crisis of Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG). The officer then unholstered his service pistol and asked the driver for identification later claiming to have seen two semiautomatic rifles on the front passenger seat. The NIWRC pointed out that with this authority, Congress is currently taking action to affirmnot restrictTribal authority. filed. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED. Motion to appoint counsel filed by respondent Joshua James Cooley. We have previously noted that a tribe retains inherent sovereign authority to address conduct [that] threatens or has some direct effect on . The NIWRC began its brief by noting the Supreme Courts own recognition in United States v. Bryant (2016) that compared to all other groups in the United States, Native American women experience the highest rates of domestic violence. Though recent advocacy efforts have resulted in the restoration of three categories of inherent Tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) 2013, the NIWRC argued that the Ninth Circuits decision in Cooley threatened to preclude Tribal law enforcement from fully implementing restored criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians due to the unworkable probable-cause-plus standard. Response Requested. Cooley Holding: A tribal police officer has authority to detain temporarily and to search a non-Native American traveling on a public right-of-way running through a reservation for potential violations of state or federal law. The authority to search a non-Indian prior to transport is ancillary to this authority that we have already recognized. The brief argued that not only was the probable-cause-plus standard impractical, but the legal reasoning behind the Ninth Circuits decision was flawed. Saylor was directed to seize all contraband in plain view, leading Saylor to discover more methamphetamine. We do think they can hold a suspect on probable cause for a reasonable time on handover., Barrett said that under the Fourth Amendment, holding a suspect under those circumstances seems like an arrest., While skeptical of the governments claims, the newest justice was also reticent to endorse the new (and above-noted) standard set by the Ninth Circuit which allowed for a tribal officer to detain a non-Indian engaged in an apparent or obvious violation of law., Henkel also wasnt thrilled about that standard but somewhat endorsed it by describing it as a situation where public safety is in jeopardy now., Have a tip we should know? brother. Brief amici curiae of The Ninth Circuit Federal Public and Community Defenders filed. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED. NativeLove, Request Technical Assistance 520 U.S. 438, 456, n. 11 (1997). Jesse Cooley. The time to file the appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including January 8, 2021. But tribes have inherent sovereignty independent of th[e] authority arising from their power to exclude, Brendale, 492 U.S., at 425 (plurality opinion), and here Montanas second exception recognizes that inherent authority. Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. Brief amici curiae of National Congress of American Indians and Other Tribal Organizations filed. See Brief for Cayuga Nation etal. Before we get into what the justices said on Tuesday, heres some background on the case. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., Cooley had challenged the authority of Tribal law enforcement to stop and detain non-Indians suspected of committing crimes within the borders of a reservation. Phone:406.477.3896 Brief amici curiae of Crow Tribe of Indians, National Congress of American Indians and Other Tribal Organizations filed. 5 Visits. (Appointed by this Court. 89. Because these provisions do not govern violations of state law, tribes would still need to strike agreements with a variety of other authorities to ensure complete coverage. The search resulted in the seizure of a handgun, glass pipe, and a bag containing methamphetamine. Brief amici curiae of Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation filed. Fearing violence, Saylor ordered Cooley out of the truck and conducted a patdown search. Saylor spoke to the driver, Joshua James Cooley, and observed that Cooley appeared to be non-native and had watery, bloodshot eyes. (Distributed), Amicus brief of Citizens Equal Rights Foundation not accepted for filing. Chapman Cooley. While that authority has sometimes been traced to a tribes right to exclude non-Indians, tribes have inherent sovereignty independent of th[e] authority arising from their power to exclude, Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation, Brief of respondent Joshua James Cooley in opposition filed. James Cooley. Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. for the Ninth Circuit . Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed. Brief amici curiae of National Congress of American Indians and Other Tribal Organizations filed. Saylor observed that the driver, Cooley, appeared to be non-native and had watery, bloodshot eyes. As the Washington Supreme Court has noted, [a]llowing a known drunk driver to get back in his or her car, careen off down the road, and possibly kill or injure Indians or non-Indians would certainly be detrimental to the health or welfare of the Tribe. State v. Schmuck, 121 Wash. 2d 373, 391, 850 P.2d 1332, 1341, cert. Does the authority here come from the Constitution? Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked. (Distributed), Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed. (Appointed by this Court.). 191414. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Joshua James Cooley. Respondent was represented by counsel appointed under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. ), Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/13/2020. Brief of respondent Joshua James Cooley in opposition filed. None of these facts are particularly unusual or complex on their own. 554 U.S. 316, 327328 (2008). denied, The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. The NIWRCs brief in support of reversal highlighted the fact that significant portions of many reservations across the United States consist of non-Indian fee lands, and the Ninth Circuit was incorrect to characterize the checkerboard nature of reservations as unique or particular to the western United States and the Crow Reservation. The driver relayed a story about having pulled over to rest. It reasoned that Saylor, as a Crow Tribe police officer, lacked the authority to investigate nonapparent violations of state or federal law by a non-Indian on a public right-of-way crossing the reservation. Feigin said the tribes authority to detain comes from the inherent sovereign authority that Indian tribes had before they were incorporated into the United States and which they never lost. The government attorney added that this authority is not granted by the Constitution or Congress but that it is recognized by both of those sources and admitted that were not looking at some specific provision.. Photos. for Cert. Feigin admitted that the power to arrest non-Indians did previously exist but was eventually excised via jurisprudence and legislation. He eventually convinced the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that a police officer employed by the Crow Tribe did not have authority to detain him because of his status as a non-Indian. We set forth two important exceptions. When pressing Henkel, Justice Kavanaugh seemed interested in crafting a limited remedy in order to do no harm so the court might issue a narrow result and not create broad ripple effects. Henkel rejected this offer, saying the cases cited by Kavanaugh were dicta that have been misrepresented by the government. We do think the tribe can do that, the government attorney argued. We then wrote that the principles on which [Oliphant] relied support the general proposition that the inherent sovereign powers of an Indian tribe do not extend to the activities of nonmembers of the tribe. Ibid. Motion to appoint counsel filed by respondent GRANTED, and Eric R. Henkel, Esquire, of Missoula, Montana, is appointed to serve as counsel for respondent in this case. As the Solicitor General points out, an initial investigation of non-Indians violations of federal and state laws to which those non-Indians are indisputably subject protects the public without raising similar concerns of the sort raised in our cases limiting tribal authority. Not the right Joshua? At the same time, we made clear that Montanas general proposition was not an absolute rule. Brief of respondent Joshua James Cooley filed. Instead, [the Supreme Court] at most recognized a narrow circumstance in which a tribal officer possesses a limited authority to detain non-Indian offenders and transport them to the custody of state or federal authorities. Have a tip or story idea? filed. (Response due July 24, 2020). Non-Indian status, the panel added, can usually be determined by ask[ing] one question. Ibid. Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED. This score is . Breyer, J., delivered the. The Government appealed. PRIVACY POLICY 9th Circuit. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/20/2020. These cookies do not store any personal information. Even though Congress recognized in VAWA 2013 that the Tribal police of a VAWA-implementing Tribe have full authority to arrest non-Indians who commit domestic violence crimes on a reservation, the Ninth Circuit standard in Cooley would leave an open-ended question as to whether Tribal police would have to ascertain the suspects Indian status before effectuating a Terry stop, even if they had reasonable suspicion that the suspect committed a crime of domestic violence. Breyer, J., delivered the, Heidepriem, Purtell, Siegel & Hinrichs, LLP, Party name: Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe, and the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, Federal Public Defender, District of Arizona, Party name: National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Party name: The Ninth Circuit Federal Public and Community Defenders, Party name: Citizens Equal Rights Foundation, Party name: Former United States Attorneys, Party name: National Indigenous Women's Resource Center, Patterson Earnhart Real Bird & Wilson LLP, Party name: Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, Party name: Indian Law Scholars and Professors, Party name: National Congress of American Indians and Other Tribal Organizations, Party name: Current and Former Members of Congress. Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 24, 2020. CONTACT US. Response Requested. Main Document Proof of Service. Similarly, the Court has held that when the jurisdiction to try and punish an offender rests outside the tribe, tribal officers may exercise their power to detain the offender and transport him to the proper authorities. Duro v. Reina, Motion to appoint counsel filed by respondent Joshua James Cooley. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Opinion (Breyer), Concurrence (Alito), Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. During oral argument, Deputy Solicitor General Eric J. Feigin argued on behalf the government petitioner that Indian tribes retain inherent authority to detain non-Indians on reasonable suspicion because those limited powers are not inconsistent with the powers of the federal government. LOW HIGH. Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on June 1, 2021. Saylor also noticed two semiautomatic rifles lying on Cooley's front seat. Brief amici curiae of Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, et al. Brief amici curiae of The Ninth Circuit Federal Public and Community Defenders filed. Tribal police officers have the authority to detain temporarily and to search non-Indian persons traveling on public rights-of-way running through a reservation for potential violations of state or federal law. See Brief for Respondent 2830; see generally 25 U.S.C. 2803(5), (7) (Secretary of the Interior may authorize tribal officers to make inquiries of any person related to the carrying out in Indian country of federal law and to perform any other law enforcement related duty); 2805 (Secretary of the Interior may promulgate rules relating to the enforcement of federal criminal law in Indian country); 25 CFR 12.21 (2019) (Bureau of Indian Affairs may issue law enforcement commissions to tribal police officers to obtain active assistance in enforcing federal criminal law). Respondent Joshua James Cooley hereby moves, pursuant to 18 U.S.C 3006A and Supreme Court Rule 39.6 and 39.7, for appointment of Eric R. Henkel as his counsel in this matter.

Chiranjeevi Sister Madhavi Rao Family, How Many Times Have The Ravens Beat The Redskins?, George Johnson Obituary, College Of Creative Studies Ucsb, Fremantle Port Arrivals, Articles J