No. 98-1972

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1999

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Re: JAMES CONSTANT,

Debtor,

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JAMES CONSTANT

Petitioner,

V.

ADVANCED MICRO-DEVICES, INC.

DAVID L. RAY, Trustee;

SALTZBURG, RAY & BERGMAN;

Respondents.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THEUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

James Constant


Pro-per Petitioner

 

i

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Has the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided an important question of patent law in an abbreviated manner which makes it impossible for the petitioner to tell why his appeal was denied and why he should not petition this Court?

ii

LIST OF PARTIES

All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINONS BELOW ......................................................................................................1

JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................1

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ..................................................................1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ......................................................................................1

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ...................................................................3

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................4

iv

INDEX TO APPENDIX

A. Order of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit entered 19 March, 1999

B. Order of the District Court Granting Advanced MicroDevices Motion to Dismiss Bankruptcy Appeal entered 24 November, 1998

C. Statutes And Rules Involved:

Bankruptcy Rule 7052

Bankruptcy Rule 9014

v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES .......................................................................................................................Pages

Hydrospace-Challenger, Inc. v. Tracor/Mas, Inc. (CA5 1975) 520 F2d 1030 ..............3

In re Hotel Hollywood(BAP CA9 1988) 95 B.R. 130 ....................................................3

Richmond Leasing Co. v. Capital Bank, N.A. (CA5 1985) 762 F2d 1303,

12 CBC2d 1202, CCH Bankr L. Rptr 70593 ..................................................................3

Schneiderman v. United States (1943) 320 US 118, 87 LEd 1796, 63 SCt 1333,

reh. den. 320 US 807, 88 LEd 488,64 SCt 24 ...............................................................3

OTHER AUTHORITY

33 Fed Proc Led 77:311 at page 322 ............................................................................3

STATUTES

28 USC 1338 ..............................................................................................................2

35 USC 261 ................................................................................................................2

BANKRUPTCY RULES

7052 ........................................................................................................................1,2

9014 ........................................................................................................................1,3

CALIFORNIA CIVIL PROCEDURE CODES

695.010 .....................................................................................................................2

701.520 .....................................................................................................................2

FULL BOOK AVAILABLE AT

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/356236