Docket entry 8, 3 September 2025 · source · PDF · 33 pages
Docket text. BRIEF by Mr. Hamilton P. Fox, III, Esq.. Type of Brief: RESPONSE. . Do any cases pending in this court or the Supreme Court of the United States raise similar issues? NO.. [1001834432] [25-9517] Hamilton Fox [Entered: 09/03/2025 01:16 PM]
Nwaubani filed a Reply Brief on June 14, 2024 (J A 55-78). The Reply Brief did not cite Jackson, but it cited two other non-existent cases, Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Glencore, Ltd., 611 F.3d 1330 (Fed.
JA 79. The use of AI may have led to “inapt argument and, more egregiously, to the citation of a nonexistent case” (emphasis added). The Court directed Mr.
Mr. Nwaubani’s Response did not discuss the USCA4 Appeal: 25-9517 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/03/2025 Pg: 9 of 33 6 Glencore or Acres Properties cases, but the Court’s February 14 Order had mentioned only “a nonexistent case” and had not specified what that case was. Mr.
Nor did it cite Darden. It continued to cite the nonexistent Glencore and Acres Properties cases. JA 138-150.
Oral argument was held on March 14, 2025. A subsequent Order from this Court suggests that the issue of citation to nonexistent cases was discussed at this argument. See Supplemental Notice to Show Cause at JA 162; Resp’t Opening Br. at 4.
The Court should consider it as part of the record. As discussed in the Argument section, however, the notice/due process argument fails even in the absence of evidence that USCA4 Appeal: 25-9517 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/03/2025 Pg: 10 of 33 7 Respondent was put on notice of the issue as to citation of additional nonexistent cases at the oral argument. There is therefore no reason to extend this proceeding while the transcript is prepared.) Shortly after the argument, on March 31, 2025, the Court issued a Supplemental Notice to Show Cause .
JA 166. With respect to Glencore, he stated that he meant to cite to an administrative proceeding USCA4 Appeal: 25-9517 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/03/2025 Pg: 11 of 33 8 before the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, not a (nonexistent) Federal Circuit opinion. JA 167-168.
JA 167-168. As to Acres Properties, he conceded that this was a nonexistent case but stated that he researched two Seventh Circuit cases with “Acres” in their names; Dilley v. Holiday Acres Props.