1

10-2905-cr

Roe v. United States

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to summary orders filed on or after

January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this

court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this court, a party must

cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation “summary order”). A party

citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel. 

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel

Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 29th day

of June, two thousand eleven.

PRESENT:

JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

ROSEMARY S. POOLER,

DENNY CHIN,

Circuit Judges.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

RICHARD ROE, an attorney,

Appellant,

JANE DOE AND JOHN DOE II, clients of Richard Roe,

Pro Se Appellants,

v. Nos. 10-2905-cr, 11-479-cr, 11-1408-cr,

 11-1411-cr, 11-1666-cr, 11-1906-cr, 

11-2425-cr

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

JOHN DOE,

Defendant-Appellee.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

FOR APPELLANT RICHARD ROE: Richard E. Lerner, Wilson Elser

Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP

(David A. Schulz and Jacob P.

Goldstein, Levine Sullivan Koch &

Schulz LLP; Paul G. Cassell, S.J.

Quinney College of Law at the

University of Utah, on the brief), New

York, NY and Salt Lake City, UT.
*

 Pursuant to our order of February 14, 2011, John Doe was not invited to brief this appeal, nor has he moved to submit a

brief. However, Doe has filed various letters and opposition papers in response to Roe’s motions throughout the course of the

appeal.

2

FOR APPELLEE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Todd Kaminsky, Assistant United States

Attorney (Peter A. Norling and

Elizabeth J. Kramer, Assistant United

States Attorneys; Loretta E. Lynch,

United States Attorney, on the brief),

United States Attorney’s Office for the

Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn,

NY. 

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE JOHN DOE: Nader Mobargha, Beys, Stein &

Mobargha LLP, New York, NY.*

Appeal from a May 18, 2010 temporary restraining order, a June 21, 2010 permanent injunction, a

July 20, 2010 temporary restraining order, and a March 23, 2011 scheduling order issued by the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of New York (I. Leo Glasser, Judge); appeal also from orders of April

1, 2011, April 4, 2011, and May 13, 2011 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New

York (Brian M. Cogan, Judge).

UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court permanently enjoining the dissemination of John

Doe’s Pre-Sentence Report is AFFIRMED. 

The appeal in Docket No. 10-2905-cr is DISMISSED in part, and the appeal in Docket No. 11-

1408-cr is DISMISSED in full, insofar as they challenge the District Court’s temporary restraining orders of

May 18, 2010 and July 20, 2010 and insofar as they challenge any related orders that may have been entered

or re-affirmed on May 28, June 11, June 14, or June 21, 2010. 

The appeal in Docket No. 11-1411-cr is DISMISSED because appellant has waived his opportunity

to challenge Judge Brian M. Cogan’s orders of April 1, 2011 and April 4, 2011.

The appeal in Docket No. 11-1906-cr is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.

With respect to Docket No. 11-2425-cr, the order of Judge Cogan is AFFIRMED.

The appeal in Docket No. 11-1666-cr by pro se appellants is DISMISSED in all respects except

insofar as it challenges the District Court’s permanent injunction against the dissemination of Doe’s PSR;

with respect to that claim, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. 

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close Docket Nos. 11-1408-cr, 11-1411-cr, 11-1906-cr, and

11-2425-cr upon entry of this order. The Clerk of Court is also DIRECTED to close Docket No. 11-479-

cr to the extent it was not already closed upon entry of our February 14, 2011 order. See Order, Roe v. United

States, Docket Nos. 10-2905-cr, 11-479-cr (2d Cir. Feb. 14, 2011). 

The remainder of this cause (Docket Nos. 10-2905-cr, 11-1666-cr) is REMANDED to the District

Court (I. Leo Glasser, Judge) for proceedings consistent with this order and with instructions (i) to rule upon

the government’s unsealing motion of March 17, 2011, (ii) to issue a final determination regarding whether

the dissemination of the other (non-PSR) sealed documents in John Doe’s criminal case, particularly those

that refer to Doe’s cooperation, should be enjoined, and (iii) in the event that a final determination regarding
3

the dissemination of the other sealed documents does not result in an injunction against the dissemination of

documents referring to Doe’s cooperation, to enter an order temporarily staying the unsealing of any

documents referring to Doe’s cooperation pending an appeal by the government to our Court. In the event

that the government elects not to appeal the unsealing of any documents that may be unsealed by the

District Court, the government is ORDERED to notify the District Court and our Court of its decision not

to pursue the appeal within the otherwise applicable time for taking the appeal.

It is further ORDERED that, pursuant to United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 1994), this

panel shall retain jurisdiction over any further appeals from proceedings in the District Court, including any

further petitions for extraordinary writs. 

It is hereby ORDERED that Judge Cogan shall retain jurisdiction for the limited purpose of

enforcing our February 14, 2011 mandate—that is, to ensure the parties’ compliance with the orders of this

Court and any that have been, or may hereafter be, entered by Judge Glasser. Our panel retains jurisdiction

pursuant to United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 1994), over any appeals from any orders or judgments

entered by Judge Cogan. 

Finally, it is ORDERED that appellant Richard Roe is hereby warned that the Court’s patience has

been exhausted by his filing of six separate notices of appeal regarding the same principal legal

dispute—including the filing of an appeal from a March 23, 2011 scheduling order that obviously was not a

final order nor subject to any of the exceptions to the “final judgment rule,” see Part (iv), post—and that any

further attempts to re-litigate the issues decided by this order, or other future filings of a frivolous nature,

may result in sanctions, including the imposition of leave-to-file restrictions, requirements of notice to other

federal courts, and monetary penalties.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this order to Judge Cogan. 

INTRODUCTION

Appellant Richard Roe (“Roe”), an attorney, and two of his clients, pro se, appeal from a May 18,

2010 temporary restraining order, a June 21, 2010 permanent injunction, a July 20, 2010 temporary

restraining order, and a March 23, 2011 scheduling order entered by Judge Glasser. Because the pro se

appellants incorporate Roe’s arguments as their own and make no other independent legal claims, our legal

conclusions apply to all appellants, though our order refers principally to Roe.

BACKGROUND

A. The SDNY Complaint and Judge Glasser’s Initial Rulings

On May 10, 2010, Richard Roe publicly filed a civil RICO complaint against John Doe (“Doe”) and

other defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Naomi Reice

Buchwald, Judge). Attached to the complaint were exhibits that included sealed materials from Doe’s criminal

case in the Eastern District of New York. The complaint itself explicitly referenced the confidential

information in the exhibits, including the fact that Doe had cooperated with the government. 

On May 18, 2010, upon an application by Doe, Judge Glasser issued an order to show cause why a

preliminary injunction should not be entered against Roe’s dissemination of the sealed materials from Doe’s

criminal case. He also temporarily restrained Roe and his clients from “disseminating the Sealed and

Confidential Materials or [the] information therein.” The materials in Roe’s possession included a 2004

Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”), two proffer agreements, Doe’s cooperation agreement, a criminal complaint,

and a criminal information. The TRO was later extended multiple times without objection (and, on some

occasions, at Roe’s request) until a hearing could be held on June 21, 2010. 
1 On February 7, 2011, Roe also filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that we order the District Court to

withdraw its various injunctive and temporary restraining orders and publicly docket Doe’s criminal case. We denied this petition in

our order of February 14, 2011. See Order, Roe v. United States, Docket Nos. 10-2905-cr, 11-479-cr (2d Cir. Feb. 14, 2011).

4

At the June 21, 2010 hearing, Judge Glasser heard testimony from Roe before issuing a permanent

injunction against dissemination of the 2004 PSR, pursuant to United States v. Charmer Industries, Inc., 711 F.2d

1164 (2d Cir. 1983). He also directed Roe to return the PSR to the United States Attorney’s Office (Roe

eventually returned the PSR directly to the court). With respect to the other sealed documents, Judge

Glasser extended his temporary restraining order until July 20, 2010, with Roe’s consent, and requested that

the parties brief whether the court had the authority to permanently enjoin the dissemination of those

documents. 

On July 9, 2010, Roe filed a notice of appeal concerning Judge Glasser’s May 18, 2010 and June 21,

2010 orders. 

On July 20, 2010, Judge Glasser held another hearing at which he recited his factual findings,

including: (1) that Roe knew the documents at issue were sealed prior to his public filing of those

documents; (2) that one of Roe’s clients had “wrongfully taken” and had “no legal right to those

documents”; and (3) that dissemination of the documents would cause “irreparable harm, which is imminent

to Mr. John Doe . . . [and] would put Mr. John Doe’s safety at risk.” Over Roe’s objection, Judge Glasser reaffirmed his ruling of June 21, 2010 regarding the permanent injunction against dissemination of the PSR

and extended his TRO with respect to the other sealed documents for another 10 days. He further ordered

that the permanent injunction and TRO should cover all copies of the documents at issue, and that all

originals and copies of such documents were to be returned or destroyed until Roe met his “burden with

respect to whether or not there is some need to maintain those documents or to keep them.” The TRO was

subsequently extended to August 13, 2010, by request of the parties, while they negotiated a possible

settlement. 

On August 10, 2010, Roe filed a notice of appeal concerning the July 20, 2010 order that re-affirmed

the permanent injunction and extended the TRO.1

 Judge Glasser has not since issued a final ruling regarding

the disclosure of the non-PSR sealed documents. 

B. Our February 14, 2011 Order and Judge Cogan’s Assignment to Enforce Our Mandate

On February 14, 2011, we heard oral argument on the government’s motion for a temporary stay of

the unsealing of the appeal. In an order issued that day orally and later in written form, we granted the

government’s request to keep the appeal under seal and temporarily enjoined Roe and his associates from

distributing or revealing in any way any documents or contents thereof subject to sealing orders in Doe’s

criminal case or on appeal. See Order, Roe v. United States, Docket Nos. 10-2905-cr, 11-479-cr (2d Cir. Feb.

14, 2011). We also remanded the cause to the District Court for the Eastern District of New York for the

limited purpose of allowing the Chief Judge to assign a District Judge to “implement[ ] and oversee[ ]

compliance with our orders and the orders previously entered by Judge Glasser.” Id. Pursuant to our order,

then-Chief Judge Dearie referred the case to Judge Brian M. Cogan for enforcement of this limited mandate.
5

On March 1, 2011, Roe submitted a letter requesting “clarification” from Judge Cogan that,

notwithstanding our order of February 14, 2011, he was permitted to disseminate certain information within

the sealed documents because that information was allegedly public knowledge. On April 1, 2011, Judge

Cogan held a hearing regarding Roe’s request. At that hearing Judge Cogan learned that Roe had not yet

destroyed or returned certain electronic and paper copies of the original PSR and other sealed documents, in

violation of Judge Glasser’s July 20, 2010 order. Accordingly, by oral order on April 1, 2011, and by a

subsequent written order of April 4, 2011, Judge Cogan ordered Roe to destroy or return any remaining

electronic or paper copies of the PSR and other sealed documents, without prejudice to his ability to seek the

documents if any of the various sealing orders were vacated by our Court. See Order, United States v. Doe

(E.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2011). 

On April 8, 2011, Roe filed a notice of appeal with respect to Judge Cogan’s orders of April 1 and

April 4, 2011. 

On May 13, 2011, Judge Cogan issued a written order denying Roe’s March 1, 2011 request to

release certain information contained within the sealed documents. After opining that information “available

to the public” was not covered by our injunction, Judge Cogan nevertheless ordered that Roe could not

“extrapolate from sealed documents . . . [which] could easily be combined with and thereby tainted by Roe’s

knowledge of non-public sealed information.” Order, United States v. Doe (E.D.N.Y. May 13, 2011). Upon a

review of the specific statements and information that Roe intended to release, Judge Cogan further

concluded that “[i]t seems obvious that Roe is seeking to fatally undermine the purpose of the injunctions by

publicizing information that would render them ineffective.” Id. 

On June 15, 2011, Roe filed a notice of appeal with respect to Judge Cogan’s order of May 13, 2011.

C. Recent Events before Judge Glasser

On March 17, 2011, after learning that Doe’s criminal conviction had been disclosed in a press

release by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, the government moved before

Judge Glasser for a limited unsealing of the docket and certain documents in Doe’s underlying criminal case. 

The government explicitly sought to unseal only those docket entries and documents that did not refer to

Doe’s cooperation with the government. 

On March 23, 2011, Judge Glasser issued a scheduling order in which he stated that he was

“uncertain of [his] continuing jurisdiction to address the controversy presented by [Roe’s February 4, 2011

‘demand’ that the case be docketed and the government’s March 17, 2011 motion for a limited unsealing of

the case].” Scheduling Order, United States v. Doe (E.D.N.Y. March 23, 2011). Accordingly, he requested that

“the government, Richard Roe and John Doe [ ] brief the issue of the Court’s jurisdiction and submit their

briefs simultaneously on April 8th, 2011.” Id.

In addition to setting the briefing schedule, the order reflected Judge Glasser’s factual finding that

Roe had “knowingly and intentionally flouted a Court order” by “unilaterally deciding” to disclose

information in Doe’s sealed criminal case. Id.
6

On May 11, 2011, Roe filed a notice of appeal concerning Judge Glasser’s March 23, 2011 order. 

On April 19, 2011, upon requests from both Roe and the government, we issued an order

confirming that Judge Glasser retained jurisdiction “to decide the government’s motion to unseal, as well as

to decide any other pending or future motions to unseal that would not result in the public disclosure of

docket entries or underlying documents that reference John Doe’s cooperation with the government.” 

Order, Roe v. United States, Docket Nos. 10-2905-cr, 11-479-cr (2d Cir. Apr. 19, 2011) (emphasis in original).

Judge Glasser has not yet acted on the government’s March 17, 2011 motion to unseal.

We assume the parties’ familiarity with the remaining facts and procedural history of the case.

DISCUSSION

(i)

On appeal, Roe argues that the District Court violated his First Amendment rights in permanently

enjoining the dissemination of Doe’s PSR and requiring him to return it to the government. We review a

district court’s grant of a permanent injunction for abuse of discretion. Roach v. Morse, 440 F.3d 53, 56 (2d

Cir. 2006); see also Sims v. Blot, 534 F.3d 117, 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (explaining “abuse of discretion”).

Under United States v. Charmer Industries, Inc., 711 F.2d 1164 (2d Cir. 1983), third parties must satisfy a

heightened standard in order to obtain access to a PSR, which is a sealed “court document designed and

treated principally as an aid to the court in sentencing.” Id. at 1176. Specifically, a third party seeking access

to a PSR bears the burden of making a “compelling demonstration that disclosure of the report is required to

meet the ends of justice.” Charmer Indus., Inc., 711 F.2d at 1175.

Here, Judge Glasser, who had presided over Doe’s criminal case and was therefore familiar with the

extent of Doe’s cooperation and his assistance in obtaining the convictions of myriad violent criminals,

explicitly entered a finding that releasing proof of Doe’s cooperation would cause him irreparable harm and

would put his safety at risk. 

Judge Glasser also found that Roe had improperly refused to submit an application to the Court to

unseal the report, despite his knowledge that the report was sealed and came from a sealed criminal case. See

id. at 1170 (“[T]he presentence report is a court document and is to be used by nonjudicial federal agencies

and others only with the permission of the court.” (emphasis supplied)); see also In re Zyprexa Injunction, 474 F. Supp.

2d 385, 417 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (enforcing a preliminary injunction requiring the return of sealed documents

pursuant to the court’s “inherent authority to enforce [its] orders”), aff’d, 617 F.3d 186 (2d Cir. 2010). Judge

Glasser found, instead, that Roe had determined unilaterally that he was entitled to publicly disclose the

report. 

Judge Glasser balanced his findings of physical danger to Doe and the intentional defiance of a

sealing order by Roe—findings that we hold were not clearly erroneous—against Roe’s asserted need to use

the PSR in the SDNY civil case to establish that Doe had defrauded investors and others by not revealing his
2

 Although arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are generally deemed waived, see Connecticut Bar Ass’n v. United

States, 620 F.3d 81, 91 n.13 (2d Cir. 2010), Roe’s opening brief was filed on March 28, 2011, and therefore could not have raised any

arguments with respect to Judge Cogan’s orders of April 1 and April 4, 2011. Accordingly, we do not base our finding of waiver on

Roe’s failure to discuss Judge Cogan’s orders in his opening brief; rather, our holding is based on his failure to discuss them in his

reply brief or in a motion for leave to submit supplemental briefing.

 

7

conviction. Because proof of Doe’s conviction (as opposed to his cooperation) remains available from other

public documents—including a press release by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District

of New York—and because the PSR is an incomplete and ultimately inadmissible document to which neither

Doe nor the government will ever have the opportunity to object, see Charmer Indus., Inc., 711 F.2d at 1170-

71, the PSR is of dubious utility in the civil case except as a tool to intimidate and harass Doe by subjecting

him to danger. Accordingly and in sum, disclosure of the report is not “required to meet the ends of

justice,” id. at 1175—indeed, quite the opposite. The District Court did not err, much less abuse its

discretion, in imposing a permanent injunction against dissemination of the PSR. See, e.g., United States v.

Charmer Indus., Inc., 711 F.2d at 1177 (stating that a “central element in the showing required of a third person

seeking disclosure is the degree to which the information in the [PSR] cannot be obtained from other

sources”).

(ii)

Doe argues that the District Court violated his First Amendment rights by temporarily restraining

his continued possession and dissemination of the other sealed documents from Doe’s criminal case. 

A TRO, which is appropriate when “speed is needed . . . to prevent irreparable harm,” Garcia v.

Yonkers Sch. Dist., 561 F.3d 97, 106 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted), is not a final judgment

and is not ordinarily appealable. See Gen. Motors Corp. v. Gibson Chem. & Oil Corp., 786 F.2d 105, 108 (2d Cir.

1986). To the extent we may, in our discretion, exercise pendent jurisdiction over the order pursuant to

Swint v. Chambers Cnty. Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35, 45 (1995), we decline to do so here. Accordingly, Roe’s appeal is

dismissed insofar as it challenges the District Court’s temporary restraining orders of May 18, 2010 and July

20, 2010. 

(iii)

On April 8, 2011, Roe filed a notice of appeal with respect to Judge Cogan’s orders of April 1 and

April 4, 2011. Roe did not raise any arguments with respect to that appeal in his reply brief of April 18,

2011, nor has he filed a motion for leave to submit supplemental briefing.2

 Accordingly, we hold that Roe

has waived his right to challenge Judge Cogan’s orders of April 1 and April 4, 2011. See, e.g., In re Wireless

Data, Inc., 547 F.3d 484, 492 (2d Cir. 2008) (deeming arguments not raised on appeal waived). 

His appeal from those orders is hereby dismissed. 

(iv)

Roe appeals from Judge Glasser’s scheduling order of March 23, 2011, insofar as it reflects Judge

Glasser’s factual finding that Roe “knowingly and intentionally flouted” a court order. Scheduling Order,

United States v. Doe (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2011). 
8

We do not have jurisdiction over Roe’s claim because the March 23, 2011 order was not a final

order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor are any of the exceptions to the “final judgment rule” applicable in

the circumstances presented. See generally Reiss v. Societe Centrale Du Gruope Des Assurances Nationales, 235 F.3d

738, 745 (2d Cir. 2000) (discussing the “final judgment rule” and its exceptions).

Accordingly, Roe’s appeal from the March 23, 2011 order is dismissed. 

 

(v)

On June 15, 2011, Roe filed a notice of appeal with respect to Judge Cogan’s order of May 13, 2011. 

We review Judge Cogan’s interpretation of our February 14, 2011 order and his interpretation of the sealing

orders of Judge Glasser de novo. 

After an item-by-item review of the specific information that Roe wished to publicly

release—including (a) John Doe’s real name, linked with his criminal docket number, (b) the specific nature

of the predicate acts leading to his criminal conviction, and (c) the sentence imposed by the District

Court—Judge Cogan concluded that the information either was not public at all or was not public to the

extent and with the level of detail that Roe intended to disclose. Accordingly, he denied Roe’s request for

permission to release the information. Order, United States v. Doe (E.D.N.Y. May 13, 2011). Upon our own

independent review, we agree with Judge Cogan that Roe’s proposed disclosures would have violated our

temporary injunction of February 14, 2011 and the sealing orders of Judge Glasser. Judge Cogan’s order of

May 13, 2011 is affirmed. 

CONCLUSION 

To summarize:

(1) The judgment of the District Court permanently enjoining the dissemination of John Doe’s

Pre-Sentence Report is AFFIRMED. 

(2) The appeal in Docket No. 10-2905-cr is DISMISSED in part, and the appeal in Docket No. 11-

1408-cr is DISMISSED in full, insofar as they challenge the District Court’s temporary restraining

orders of May 18, 2010 and July 20, 2010 and insofar as they challenge any related orders that may

have been entered or re-affirmed on May 28, June 11, June 14, or June 21, 2010. 

(3) The appeal in Docket No. 11-1411-cr is DISMISSED because Roe has waived his opportunity

to challenge Judge Brian M. Cogan’s orders of April 1, 2011 and April 4, 2011.

(4) The appeal in Docket No. 11-1906-cr is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. 

(5) With respect to Docket No. 11-2425-cr, the order of Judge Cogan is AFFIRMED.

(6) The appeal in Docket No. 11-1666-cr by pro se appellants is DISMISSED in all respects except

insofar as it challenges the District Court’s permanent injunction against the dissemination of Doe’s

PSR; with respect to that claim, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. 

(7) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close Docket Nos. 11-1408-cr, 11-1411-cr, 11-1906-cr,

and 11-2425-cr upon entry of this order. The Clerk of Court is also DIRECTED to close Docket

No. 11-479-cr to the extent it was not already closed upon entry of our February 14, 2011 order. See

Order, Roe v. United States, Docket Nos. 10-2905-cr, 11-479-cr (2d Cir. Feb. 14, 2011). 

(8) The remainder of this cause (Docket Nos. 10-2905-cr, 11-1666-cr) is REMANDED to the
9

District Court (I. Leo Glasser, Judge) for proceedings consistent with this order and with instructions

(i) to rule upon the government’s unsealing motion of March 17, 2011, (ii) to issue a final

determination regarding whether the dissemination of the other (non-PSR) sealed documents in

John Doe’s criminal case, particularly those that refer to Doe’s cooperation, should be enjoined, and

(iii) in the event that a final determination regarding the dissemination of the other sealed

documents does not result in an injunction against the dissemination of documents referring to

Doe’s cooperation, to enter an order temporarily staying the unsealing of any documents referring to

Doe’s cooperation pending an appeal by the government to our Court. In the event that the

government elects not to appeal the unsealing of any documents that may be unsealed by the

District Court, the government is ORDERED to notify the District Court and our Court of its

decision not to pursue the appeal within the otherwise applicable time for taking the appeal.

(9) It is further ORDERED that, pursuant to United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 1994), this

panel shall retain jurisdiction over any further appeals from proceedings in the District Court,

including any further petitions for extraordinary writs. 

(10) It is hereby ORDERED that Judge Cogan shall retain jurisdiction for the limited purpose of

enforcing our February 14, 2011 mandate—that is, to ensure the parties’ compliance with the orders

of this Court and any that have been, or may hereafter be, entered by Judge Glasser. Our panel

retains jurisdiction pursuant to United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 1994), over any appeals

from any orders or judgments entered by Judge Cogan.

(11) Finally, it is ORDERED that appellant Richard Roe is hereby warned that the Court’s patience

has been exhausted by his filing of six separate notices of appeal regarding the same principal legal

dispute—including the filing of an appeal from a March 23, 2011 scheduling order that obviously

was not a final order nor subject to any of the exceptions to the “final judgment rule,” see Part (iv),

ante—and that any further attempts to re-litigate the issues decided by this order, or other future

filings of a frivolous nature, may result in sanctions, including the imposition of leave-to-file

restrictions, requirements of notice to other federal courts, and monetary penalties.

(12) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this order to Judge Cogan. 

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk