Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Stanley

United States District Court, Fifth Circuit

December 5, 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
MARKUS BRENT STANLEY, Defendant.

ORDER

DAVID BRAMLETTE, District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on the defendant's motion for stay of judgment and injunction pending appeal and request for waiver of bond (docket entry 98). Having carefully considered the motion and response, the memoranda of the parties and the applicable law, and being fully advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:

On August 23, 2013, this Court issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order finding that the United States prevailed at trial, proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant "willfully attempted to evade or defeat" his income tax liabilities for tax years 1998-2004. The Court directed that those liabilities, as well as the defendant's 2005-2010 liabilities, be reduced to judgment. The Court further directed the United States to submit a proposed final judgment covering the thirteen tax years at issue "as to the amount of liabilities, penalties, and interest owed by Dr. Stanley." Memorandum Opinion and Order, p. 26. The Court has not yet entered a final judgment in this case; however, on October 1, 2013, the defendant filed a notice of appeal.

Because the defendant has already filed a notice of appeal, the Court shall decide his motion at this time, for purposes of judicial economy and efficiency. See Henrietta D. v. Giuliani , 2001 WL 1602114, *6 n.1 (E.D. N.Y. Dec. 11, 2001). In his motion, the defendant indicates that he is proceeding under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which allows a party to seek first from the district court: "(A) a stay of the judgment or order of a district court pending appeal; (B) approval of a supersedeas bond; or (C) an order suspending, modifying, restoring, or granting an injunction while an appeal is pending." Fed.R.App.P. 8(a)(1)(A)-(C).

While the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure allow the defendant to file a motion to stay execution of a judgment pending appeal before the district court, they do not provide the procedural rule for doing so. See New Pacific Overseas Group (USA) Inc. v. Excal International Development Corp., 2000 WL 802907, *1 n.1 (S.D. N.Y. June 21, 2000)(Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure do not govern procedure in the district courts). Instead, Rule 62(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dictates the procedure the defendant must follow. However, the standard applied under Fed.R.App.P. 8(a) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d) is the same. Id.

Rule 62(a) provides:

Except as stated in this rule, no execution may issue on a judgment, nor may proceedings be taken to enforce it, until 14 days have passed after its entry. But unless the court orders otherwise, the following are not stayed after being entered, even if an appeal is taken:
(1) an interlocutory or final judgment in an action for an injunction or a receivership; or
(2) a judgment or order that directs an accounting in an action for patent infringement.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(a).

Rule 62(d) provides:

If an appeal is taken, the appellant may obtain a stay by supersedeas bond, except in an action described in Rule 62(a)(1) or (2). The bond may be given upon or after filing of the notice of appeal or after obtaining the order allowing the appeal. The stay takes effect when the court approves the bond.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d).

The purpose of a supersedeas bond is to "preserve the status quo while protecting the non-appealing party's rights pending appeal." Poplar Grove Planting and Refining Co. v. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc. , 600 F.2d 1189, 1190 (5th Cir. 1979). Generally, the bonded amount equals the full amount of the judgment.[1] Id. at 1191 (citing former Rule 73(d) standard). However, the district court has inherent discretionary authority to set the amount of the bond. Id . The bond amount should be sufficient to ensure that judgment creditors are ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.