ARMSTRONG v. GUCCIONE, 219 Fed.Appx. 90 (2nd Cir. 2007)

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 033 AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST ONE CITATION MUST BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION: “(SUMMARY ORDER).” UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/), THE PARTY CITING THE SUMMARY ORDER MUST FILE AND SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED. IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE A REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED. Martin A. ARMSTRONG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph R. GUCCIONE, United States Marshal for the Southern District of New York, and Marvin D. Morrison, Warden, Metropolitan Correctional Center, Respondents-Appellees, Alan M. Cohen, Intervenor Receiver-Appellee.

Nos. 04-5448-pr (L), 05-0280-pr (CON).United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 6, 2007.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Motion arising from our decision in Armstrong v. Guccione, 70 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2006), affirming the orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Richard Owen, Judge).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,AND DECREED that the petitioner-appellant’s motion isDISMISSED as moot.

Thomas v. Sjoblom, Proskauer, Rose LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner-Appellant — Appellant.

Alexander H. Southwell, Assistant United States Attorney (Michael J. Garcia, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, on the brief), New York, New York, for Respondents-Appellees.

PRESENT: Hon. WALKER, Hon. PIERRE N. LEVAL, Hon. SONIA SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER
On December 18, 2006, petitioner-appellant Martin A. Armstrong moved for this court (1) to clarify that our opinion i Armstrong directed the district court to reassign the pending enforcement suits against him brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC v. Princeton Econ. Int’l Ltd., No. 99-Civ.-9667(RO) (S.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 13, 1999), and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC v. Princeton Global Mgmt, Ltd., No. 99-Civ.-9669(RO) (S.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 13, 1999) (together, the “Consolidated Enforcement Actions”); and (2) to order that the mandate of our decision i Armstrong issue immediately. On January 11, 2007, we granted Armstrong’s motion in part and held the motion in abeyance as to the issue of reassignment. On January 26, 2007, Armstrong informed us that the Consolidated Enforcement Actions had

Page 91

been reassigned to a different district court judge. The pending motion has therefore been rendered moot.

For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner-appellant’s motion isDISMISSED as moot.