Vazrik A. Makarian, Sui Juris
c/o Forwarding Agent
8617 Raindrop Canyon Avenue
Las Vegas 89129
NEVADA, USA
All Rights Reserved
Without Prejudice
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Case No. 01-50422
)
Plaintiffs/Appellees, ) NOTICE OF MOTION AND
) MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO
v ) APPEAL INTERLOCUTORY ORDER:
)
VAZRIK A. MAKARIAN, ) FRAP Rule 5
)
Defendant/Appellant. )
_________________________________)
COMES NOW Vazrik A. Makarian, Citizen of Nevada State and alleged Defendant in the above entitled matter (hereinafter “Appellant”), to move this honorable Court, pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (“FRAP”), for permission to appeal an interlocutory ORDER issued by the United States District Court for the Central District of California (“USDC”), and to provide formal NOTICE to all interested Party(s) of same.
On June 26, 2000 A.D., the USDC issued a bench WARRANT for the arrest of Appellant, allegedly for failure to appear.
On August 7, 2000 A.D., Appellant filed a MOTION TO VACATE INDICTMENT in the instant case.
On November 8, 2000 A.D., the USDC issued an ORDER holding Appellant’s MOTION in abeyance pending Appellant’s appearance or apprehension.
On June 28, 2001 A.D., Appellant filed His MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER, which the USDC summarily denied with a hand-written note stating, “See prior order dated 11/8/2000. A. H. Matz.”
Appellant submits that the USDC’s summary denial is not a final judgment, but an interlocutory order. See Final Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. 1291.
Accordingly, Appellant argues that He is required to request permission to appeal an interlocutory order.
Appellant specifically denies that He was ever properly served with a SUMMONS or INDICTMENT in the instant case.
Appellant also specifically denies that He has ever retained a licensed attorney to represent Him in the instant case.
Therefore, proper service was never effected, and Appellant has been under no obligations whatsoever to make any general appearances before the USDC in the instant case.
Moreover, the Clerk of this Court has already issued a briefing schedule in the instant case.
Appellant wishes to obviate preparation of an OPENING BRIEF at this time, only to be told that this Court does not have jurisdiction under the Final Judgments Act supra.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Appellant respectfully requests leave to appeal the interlocutory order(s) in question, and an ORDER from this honorable Court declaring that final judgment has not yet been reached in the USDC.
ATTACHMENTS
Appellant attaches true and correct copies of:
(1) USDC’s ORDER dated November 8, 2000 A.D.;
(2) USDC’s ORDER dated June 28, 2001, A.D.
VERIFICATION
I, Vazrik A. Makarian, hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best of My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). See Supremacy Clause.
Dated: ______________________________________________
Signed: /s/ Vazrik A. Makarian
______________________________________________
Printed: Vazrik A. Makarian
I, Vazrik A. Makarian, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (federal government), that I am at least 18 years of age, a Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America, and that I personally served the following document(s):
NOTICE
OF MOTION AND
MOTION
FOR PERMISSION TO
APPEAL
INTERLOCUTORY ORDER:
FRAP Rule 5
by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to the following:
United
States Attorney
Attention: Miriam A. Krinsky
United States Courthouse
312 North Spring Street
Los Angeles 90012
CALIFORNIA, USA
Dated: ______________________________________________
Signed: /s/ Vazrik A. Makarian
______________________________________________
Printed: Vazrik A. Makarian