Court Opinion

ID: 9487674
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:23:33.351797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:25.447346
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of petitioner’s “EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION”, respondents’ “MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE OF DISTRICT COURT’S DENIAL OF RULE 60(b) RELIEF AND OBJECTION TO EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION”, petitioner’s “OPPOSITION OF JAMES P. FREE, JR. TO THE STATE’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE OF DISTRICT COURT’S DENIAL OF RULE 60(b) RELIEF”, and petitioner’s “SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPORT FOR STAY OF EXECUTION AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO THE STATES’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE”,
IT IS ORDERED that the district court’s order of December 2, 1994 is SUMMARILY AFFIRMED. See Williams v. Chrans, 42 F.3d 1137 (7th Cir.1994). The motion for a stay of execution is MOOT.