{"cached_at":"2026-09-12T10:40:50.664953+00:00","cl_docket_id":"73638409","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73638409/","id":73638409,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/ca11/","court_id":"ca11","original_court_info":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/originating-court-information/975511/","id":975511,"date_created":"2026-07-18T10:44:31.680950-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-27T09:49:57.764379-07:00","docket_number":"5:24-cr-00138","docket_number_raw":"5:24-cr-00138","assigned_to_str":"Thomas P. Barber","ordering_judge_str":"","court_reporter":"ALSD Court Reporter TBA","date_disposed":"2025-10-22","date_filed":"2024-11-22","date_judgment":null,"date_judgment_eod":null,"date_filed_noa":"2025-12-12","date_received_coa":null,"date_rehearing_denied":null,"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/15323/","ordering_judge":null},"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":null,"referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/73638409/united-states-v-robert-rivernider/","date_created":"2026-07-18T10:44:31.733993-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-27T09:49:57.785700-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"Middle District of Florida","assigned_to_str":"","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":null,"date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2025-12-15","date_terminated":null,"date_last_filing":"2026-08-26","case_name_short":"","case_name":"United States v. Robert Rivernider","case_name_full":"","slug":"united-states-v-robert-rivernider","docket_number":"25-14369","docket_number_core":"25014369","docket_number_raw":"25-14369","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"","federal_dn_case_type":"","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"94230","cause":"","nature_of_suit":"","jury_demand":"","jurisdiction_type":"","appellate_fee_status":"Fee Not Required","appellate_case_type_information":"Criminal, Post-Conviction","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2026-07-18T10:44:31.588068-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/flmd/","parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/20219650/","id":20219650,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13847405/","attorney_id":13847405,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73638409/","docket_id":73638409,"role":null},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13847406/","attorney_id":13847406,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73638409/","docket_id":73638409,"role":null}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73638409/","docket_id":73638409,"name":"","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-07-18T10:44:33.738660-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-18T10:44:33.738676-07:00","name":"SERVICE","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/20219649/","id":20219649,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13847404/","attorney_id":13847404,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73638409/","docket_id":73638409,"role":null}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73638409/","docket_id":73638409,"name":"Defendant\u00a0-\u00a0Appellant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-07-18T10:44:32.828256-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-18T10:44:32.828266-07:00","name":"ROBERT RIVERNIDER (Federal Prisoner: 96006-004)","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/20219648/","id":20219648,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13847402/","attorney_id":13847402,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73638409/","docket_id":73638409,"role":null},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13847403/","attorney_id":13847403,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73638409/","docket_id":73638409,"role":null}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73638409/","docket_id":73638409,"name":"Plaintiff\u00a0-\u00a0Appellee","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-07-18T10:44:32.087422-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-18T10:44:32.087433-07:00","name":"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476021031/","id":476021031,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73638409/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491570801/","id":491570801,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73638409/48/united-states-v-robert-rivernider/","date_created":"2026-08-27T09:43:17.299735-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-27T09:43:17.299750-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"48","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"011014569791","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-27T09:43:17.260580-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-27T09:43:17.274686-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-26","time_filed":null,"entry_number":48,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-26.001","pacer_sequence_number":10817226,"description":"RESPONSE has been filed by Appellant Robert Rivernider to Opposition filed by Appellee The Unites States (doc. 45) in 25-14369 [35]. [Entered: 08/26/2026 02:39 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476021030/","id":476021030,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73638409/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491570800/","id":491570800,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73638409/46/united-states-v-robert-rivernider/","date_created":"2026-08-27T09:43:17.221429-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-27T09:43:17.221445-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"46","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"011014559568","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-27T09:43:17.184974-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-27T09:43:17.197180-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-19","time_filed":null,"entry_number":46,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-19.001","pacer_sequence_number":10812203,"description":"Document filed by Robert Rivernider in support of Motion filed by Appellant Robert Rivernider in 25-14369 [44]. [Entered: 08/20/2026 10:44 AM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476021029/","id":476021029,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73638409/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491570799/","id":491570799,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73638409/47/united-states-v-robert-rivernider/","date_created":"2026-08-27T09:43:17.147226-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-27T09:43:17.147241-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"47","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"011014560167","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-27T09:43:17.105661-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-27T09:43:17.115982-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-17","time_filed":null,"entry_number":47,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-17.002","pacer_sequence_number":10812541,"description":"MOTION Emergency motion to reduce paper copy requirements for time sensitive supplemental filing filed by Appellant Robert Rivernider. Opposition to Motion is Unknown [47] [Entered: 08/20/2026 01:03 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476021028/","id":476021028,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73638409/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491570798/","id":491570798,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73638409/45/united-states-v-robert-rivernider/","date_created":"2026-08-27T09:43:17.065217-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T13:49:07.937590-07:00","sha1":"84f58b46919d4e260802ed125d3aad3aff7a8db2","page_count":6,"file_size":98060,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230.45.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230.45.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" No. 25-14369-J\n\n In the\n United States Court of Appeals\n for the Eleventh Circuit\n\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n v.\n\n ROBERT H. RIVERNIDER,\n Defendant-Appellant\n\n ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA\n NO. 5:24-CR-138-TPB-PRL-1\n\n UNITED STATES\u2019 NOTICE OF OPPOSITION TO\n APPELLANT\u2019S MOTION TO\n \u201cSUPPLEMENT\u201d HIS PREVIOUS MOTION\n\n GREGORY W. KEHOE\n United States Attorney\n\n TIFFANY CUMMINS NICK\n Assistant United States Attorney\n Appellate Division\n\n SEAN SIEKKINEN\n Assistant United States Attorney\n Appellate Division\n USA No. 192\n 400 N. Tampa St., Ste. 3200\n Tampa, FL 33602\nAugust 17, 2026 (813) 274-6000\n\f In the United States Court of Appeals\n for the Eleventh Circuit\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n\nv. No. 25-14369-J\n\nROBERT H. RIVERNIDER,\n Defendant-Appellant\n\n\n United States\u2019 Notice of Opposition to Appellant\u2019s Motion to\n \u201cSupplement\u201d His Previous Motion\n\n The United States opposes Rivernider\u2019s motion to \u201csupplement\u201d (App.\n\nDoc. 43) his previous motion for release pending appeal (App. Doc. 35). We\n\nhave already explained why Rivernider is not entitled to the extraordinary\n\nremedy of release pending appeal. See App. Doc. 37. The documents that he\n\nbelatedly submits don\u2019t move the needle and should not be considered\n\nregardless. As we\u2019ve explained, appellate courts review district courts\u2019 findings\n\nregarding release pending appeal. Appellate courts are not equipped to make\n\nthe myriad factual findings that the Bail Reform Act requires. See 18 U.S.C.\n\n\u00a7 3143(b); App. Doc. 37 at 5\u20139. A district judge should determine in the first\n\ninstance, among other things, whether a defendant (1) is likely to flee and (2)\n\nwould pose a risk to the community. See 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3143(b)(1)\u2013(2); United\n\nStates v. Giancola, 754 F.2d 898, 900\u201301 (11th Cir. 1985); United States v. Meister,\n\f744 F.3d 1236, 1239 (11th Cir. 2013); In re Smith, 823 F.2d 401, 401 (11th Cir.\n\n1987). It would be inappropriate to attempt to make those determinations now,\n\nbased solely on the documents attached to Rivernider\u2019s motion, without the\n\nbenefit of a full adversarial hearing. The district court did not address these\n\nthings because, as we explained, Rivernider argued below that he should be\n\nreleased simply to facilitate his pro se appeal; he gave no valid need or reason\n\nfor release, so the district court did not determine whether he met the other\n\nrequirements. See App. Doc. 37 at 7\u20138. Regardless, even if Rivernider could\n\nnow show \u201cby clear and convincing evidence\u201d\u2014as the Bail Reform Act\n\nrequires\u2014that he is not likely to flee and would not pose a risk to the\n\ncommunity, release still would not be warranted because he cannot\n\ndemonstrate a \u201csubstantial question of law or fact\u201d likely to result in favorable\n\nrelief on appeal. See 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3143(b)(4)\u2013(5). Accordingly, Rivernider\u2019s\n\nmotion for release pending appeal (App. Doc. 35) and his motion to\n\nsupplement that motion (App. Doc. 43) should be denied.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Respectfully submitted,\n\n GREGORY W. KEHOE\n United States Attorney\n\n TIFFANY CUMMINS NICK\n Assistant United States Attorney\n Appellate Division\n\nBy: s/ Sean Siekkinen\n SEAN SIEKKINEN\n Assistant United States Attorney\n Appellate Division\n USA No. 192\n 400 N. Tampa St., Ste. 3200\n Tampa, FL 33602\n (813) 274-6000\n sean.siekkinen@usdoj.gov\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Certificate of Compliance with Type-Volume Limitation\n\n This response, which contains 349 countable words, complies with Fed.\n\nR. App. P. 27(d)(2)(A) and Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5), (6).\n\f Certificate of Service\n\n I certify that on August 17, 2026, I electronically filed the foregoing\n\ndocument with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which\n\nwill send a notice of electronic filing to the following:\n\n ROBERT H. RIVERNIDER\n Reg. No. 96006-004\n FCI Beckley \u2013 Inmate Legal Mail\n P.O. Box 350\n Beaver, WV 25813\n\n Defendant-appellant, pro se\n\n s/ Sean Siekinnen\n SEAN SIEKKINEN\n Assistant United States Attorney\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-27T09:43:20.116145-07:00","document_number":"45","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"011014554072","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-27T09:43:17.026516-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-27T09:43:17.039410-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-17","time_filed":null,"entry_number":45,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":10809424,"description":"The United States opposes appellant's July 30, 2026 motion (Doc. 43) to \"supplement\" his previous motion (Doc. 35) for release pending appeal filed by Attorney Sean Siekkinen for Appellee USA. [25-14369] (ECF: Sean Siekkinen) [Entered: 08/17/2026 04:43 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476021027/","id":476021027,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73638409/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491570797/","id":491570797,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73638409/43/united-states-v-robert-rivernider/","date_created":"2026-08-27T09:43:16.981469-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-27T09:43:16.981484-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"43","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"011014528489","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-27T09:43:16.933122-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-27T09:43:16.946592-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-30","time_filed":null,"entry_number":43,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":10797377,"description":"Supplemental PENDING RENEWED EMERGENCY MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE ON PERSONAL RECOGNIZANCE [35] filed by Appellant Robert Rivernider. [Entered: 07/31/2026 01:28 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476021026/","id":476021026,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73638409/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491570796/","id":491570796,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73638409/42/united-states-v-robert-rivernider/","date_created":"2026-08-27T09:43:16.880803-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T14:34:35.660729-07:00","sha1":"4d17dcee616a7da3487508e84f378133820f585f","page_count":10,"file_size":497576,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230.42.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230.42.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"OF AP\n5. COURT oven PEATS \u2018s\ni CLERK\n\na 2005\n\nJuly 21, 2026 mee A at\n\nClerk of Court __ AUNT, Gh\n\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit\n56 Forsyth Street, N.W.\n\nAtlanta, GA 30303\n\nRe: United States v. Robert Rivernider\nAppeal No. 25-14369 \u2014J\n\nDear Clerk:\nEnclosed for filing are the following documents in the above-captioned appeal:\n\n1. Appellant's Motion for Exemption/Waiver concerning the transcript and record\nrequirements.\n\n2. Appellant's Opening Brief.\n\n3. Certificate of Compliance.\n\n4. Certificate of Service.\n\nCopies of the enclosed filings have been served upon counsel for the United States in accordance\nwith Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.\n\nPlease file the enclosed documents in the record of this appeal. If any additional information or\ncorrection is required, please notify me.\n\nThank you for your attention to this matter.\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nRobert Rivernider\nAppellant, Pro Se\n\nFederal Register No. [Your Register Number]\nFCI Beckley Satellite Camp\n\nFederal Correctional Institution Beckley\n\nP.O. Box 350\n\nBeaver, WV 25813\n\fIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\nFOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT\n\nNo. 25-14369-J\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\nPlaintiff-Appellee, Appeal from the\nUnited States District Court\n\ny for the Middle District of Florida\n\nD.C. No,\nROBERT RIVERNIDER, 5:24-cr-00138-TPB-PRL-]\n\nDefendant-Appellant.\n\nAPPELLANT'S MOTION TO CONFIRM EXEMPTION FROM FILING\nAN APPENDIX AND TO ENSURE CERTIFICATION AND\nTRANSMISSION OF THE COMPLETE RECORD\n\nRobert Rivernider, Pro Se\nReg. No. 96006-004\nFCI Beckley Satellite Camp\nP.O. Box 350\nBeaver, West Virginia 25813\n\fNo. 25-14369-J, United States v. Rivernider\n\nbat FICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE\nee DISCLOSURE STATEMENT\n\nPursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and Eleventh Circuit\nRules 26.1-1 through 26.1-3, Appellant Robert Rivernider identifies the following\npersons and entities that have or may have an interest in the outcome of this\n\nappeal:\n\nBarber, Hon. Thomas P. - United States District Judge\n\nChatigny, Hon. Robert N. - United States District Judge, District of Connecticut\nFrost, Robert M., Jr. - Prior Connecticut counsel for Appellant\n\nGladson, William - Florida state prosecutor and author of the September 8,\n2025 letter\n\nHamilton, William S. - Assistant United States Attorney\n\nLammens, Hon. Philip R. - United States Magistrate Judge\n\nPadilla, Erik - United States Probation Officer\n\nRivernider, Robert - Defendant-Appellant, pro se\n\nUnited States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida\n\nUnited States District Court for the District of Connecticut\n\nUnited States District Court for the Middle District of Florida\n\nUnited States of America - Plaintiff Appellee\n\nUnited States Probation Office\n\nVictims identified in the sealed presentence investigation report and restitution\nrecords in the underlying District of Connecticut case\n\nAppellant certifies that no publicly traded company or corporation has an\n\ninterest in the outcome of this appeal.\n\nC-1 of 1\n\fAPPELLANT'S MOTION TO CONFIRM EXEMPTION FROM FILING\nAN APPENDIX AND TO ENSURE CERTIFICATION AND\nTRANSMISSION OF THE COMPLETE RECORD\n\nAppellant Robert Rivernider, an incarcerated litigant proceeding pro se,\nrespectfully moves for an order confirming that he is exempt from filing an\nappendix and ensuring that the complete district-court record - including all\ndesignated transcripts and necessary exhibits - is certified and made available to\nthis Court. This is a procedural motion under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure\n\n10(e), 11, and 27, and Eleventh Circuit Rules 11-2, 12-1, and 30-1(b)-(c).\n\nGROUNDS FOR RELIEF\n1. Appellant is incarcerated at FCI Beckley Satellite Camp and is proceeding\n\nwithout counsel in this criminal appeal from the revocation judgment entered\nin Middle District of Florida Case No. 5:24-cr-00138-TPB-PRL-1.\n\n2. The appeal requires review of multiple hearings and a substantial documentary\nrecord. Appellant designated transcripts of the proceedings held on June 25,\nJuly 9, August 26, October 24, and December 12, 2025. Together, those\ntranscripts comprise hundreds of pages and are central to the issues raised in\nAppellant's opening brief. Other central record items include Appellant's\nSeptember 10 and September 29, 2025 disclosure requests, Assistant United\nStates Attorney William S. Hamilton's October 20, 2025 disclosure letter and\nenclosure list, the January 14, 2025 warrant or violation materials, and Middle\n\nDistrict of Florida Dockets 2 through 7.\n\f3. Eleventh Circuit Rule 30-1(c) expressly provides that an incarcerated pro se\nparty is not required to file an appendix. That exemption applies directly to\nAppellant and eliminates any obligation that he personally reproduce and mail\nthe designated transcripts or other record materials as an appendix.\n\n4. Eleventh Circuit Rule 30-1(b) separately assigns the appendix obligation in an\nappeal by an incarcerated pro se party to counsel for the appellee. Appellee's\ncounsel must submit an appendix containing the specific pages of record\nmaterials referred to in the argument sections of both parties\u2019 briefs that are\nrelevant to the resolution of an issue on appeal.\n\n5. The rules governing the record on appeal independently require the district clerk\nto manage the official record. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 11(b){2)\nrequires the district clerk, when the record is complete, to number the\ndocuments constituting the record and promptly send them to the circuit clerk\nwith a corresponding list.\n\n6. Eleventh Circuit Rule 11-2 makes the district clerk responsible for determining\nwhen the record is complete and for certifying to the parties and this Court that\nthe record - including the designated transcripts and all necessary exhibits - is\ncomplete for purposes of appeal. Rule 12-1 further provides that when\ntranscripts are ordered, the record is deemed completed and filed on the date\n\nthe court reporter files the transcript with the district court.\n\f7. Appellant therefore should not be required to copy and mail the transcripts\nhimself. The official transcripts should remain part of the district-court record,\nbe certified as complete, and be available to this Court through the ordinary\nelectronic-record and transmission procedures. The district clerk should also\ndetermine whether the September requests, Hamilton's October 20 letter and\nenclosure list, the January 14 materials, and Dockets 2 through 7 were filed,\nlodged, submitted, or otherwise part of the proceedings below, and include\nthem if they are part of the district-court record. This motion does not seek to\nadd material that was never before the district court or otherwise enlarge the\nrecord.\n\n8. If the status of any identified item is disputed or cannot be determined from the\n\ndocket, Appellant requests a district-court determination under Federal Rule of\n\nAppellate Procedure 10(e) as to whether the item was before the court and omitted\n\nfrom the record. Appellant does not invoke Rule 10(e) to create a new record. If an\n\nitem was not before the district court, Appellant preserves any separate request for\n\na limited remand, in camera review, or other appropriate procedure.\n\n9. Confirmation is warranted because this appeal previously encountered\ntranscript-order and record-processing difficulties, including dismissal and\n\nlater reinstatement. A short order clarifying Appellant's exemption and the\n\fclerks' respective record duties will prevent another procedural\nmisunderstanding and permit the appeal to be decided on the merits.\n\n10. Appellant will provide precise citations in his brief to the district-court docket\nentries, transcript pages, and line numbers. Appellee may then prepare the\nappendix required by Rule 30-1(b), without requiring Appellant to reproduce\n\nhundreds of pages from prison.\n\nPRIOR OR RELATED REQUESTS\nAppellant previously requested expedited transmission or completion of the\n\nrecord in connection with emergency-release and record-completeness filings. This\nmotion is narrower. It principally seeks confirmation of the express appendix\nexemption in Rule 30-1(c) and implementation of the ordinary certification and\ntransmission duties established by Rules 11 and 12. No court has denied this\n\nspecific request for confirmation of the incarcerated-pro-se appendix exemption.\n\nPOSITION OF APPELLEE\nBecause Appellant is incarcerated, proceeds pro se, and must communicate\n\nand file by mail, he has not been able to confer with counsel for Appellee before\n\nfiling this motion. Appellee's position is unknown.\n\nRELIEF REQUESTED\nFor these reasons, Appellant respectfully requests that the Court:\n\nA. confirm that, as an incarcerated pro se appellant, he is not required to prepare,\n\nreproduce, or file an appendix under Eleventh Circuit Rule 30-1(c);\n\fB. confirm that failure to file an appendix will not be treated as a deficiency or a\nfailure to prosecute this appeal;\n\nC. direct or request the Clerk of the Middle District of Florida to determine and\ncertify that the record is complete and to ensure that the transcripts of the\nJune 25, July 9, August 26, October 24, and December 12, 2025 proceedings,\ntogether with all necessary exhibits and docket materials - including the\nSeptember 10 and September 29 disclosure requests, Hamilton's October 20\nletter and enclosure list, the January 14 materials, and Dockets 2 through 7,\nto the extent they were before the district court - are included in or made\navailable as part of the official record on appeal;\n\nD. if the record status of any identified item is disputed, direct the district court to\ndetermine under Rule 10(e) whether the item was before it and omitted from the\ntransmitted record;\n\nE. direct Appellee to comply with Eleventh Circuit Rule 30-1(b) by filing the\nrelevant pages cited in the argument sections of Appellant's and Appellee's\nbriefs; and\n\nF, grant any further procedural relief necessary to ensure that the appeal is\nreviewed on the complete official record without requiring Appellant to copy\n\nand mail hundreds of transcript pages.\n\fRespectfully submitted,\n\n/s/ Robert Rivernider\n\nRobert Rivernider, Pro Se\nReg. No. 96006-004\n\nFCI Beckley Satellite Camp\nP.O. Box 350\n\nBeaver, West Virginia 25813\n\nDated: July 21, 2026\n\nCERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE\nThis motion complies with the type-volume limitation of Federal Rule of\nAppellate Procedure 27(d)(2) because it contains 1,107 words, excluding the\nportions exempted by Rule 32(f). It complies with the typeface and type-style\nrequirements of Rules 27(d)(1)(E) and 32(a)(5)-(6) because it was prepared in 14-\npoint Times New Roman, a proportionally spaced typeface.\n\n/s/ Robert Rivernider\nRobert Rivernider, Pro Se\nCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\nI certify that on July 21, 2026, a true and correct copy of this motion was\nplaced in the United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed to:\n\nOffice of the United States Attorney\nMiddle District of Florida\n\n35 S.E. Ist Avenue, Suite 300\nOcala, Florida 34471\n\nThe original was separately placed in the United States Mail for filing with:\n\nDavid J. Smith, Clerk of Court\n\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit\n56 Forsyth Street, N.W.\n\nAtlanta, Georgia 30303\n\n/s/ Robert Rivernider\n\fRobert Rivernider, Pro Se\nReg. No. 96006-004\n\nFCI Beckley Satellite Camp\nP.O. Box 350\n\nBeaver, West Virginia 25813\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-27T09:43:19.445504-07:00","document_number":"42","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"011014518312","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-27T09:43:16.826050-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-27T09:43:16.850992-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-24","time_filed":null,"entry_number":42,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-24.002","pacer_sequence_number":10792465,"description":"MOTION to confirm exemption from filing an appendix and to ensure certification and transmission of the complete record filed by Appellant Robert Rivernider. Opposition to Motion is Unknown [42] [Entered: 07/24/2026 03:50 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476021025/","id":476021025,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73638409/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491570795/","id":491570795,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73638409/41/united-states-v-robert-rivernider/","date_created":"2026-08-27T09:43:16.778632-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-27T09:43:16.778648-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"41","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"011014518285","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-27T09:43:16.701617-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-27T09:43:16.732246-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-24","time_filed":null,"entry_number":41,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-24.001","pacer_sequence_number":10792448,"description":"Appellant's brief filed by Robert Rivernider. [Entered: 07/24/2026 03:45 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476021024/","id":476021024,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73638409/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491570794/","id":491570794,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73638409/44/united-states-v-robert-rivernider/","date_created":"2026-08-27T09:43:16.641761-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T14:19:35.583635-07:00","sha1":"4be15b1d442b9ba98923484432f2daa5af340218","page_count":31,"file_size":1856134,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230.44.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230.44.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\n BECEIVEP\n Plaintiff\u2014Appellee, \u25a0LERK\n\n\n m 0 8 202t\nV.\n .V.. .\n\n\n ilLANTA..&B-\n\nROBERT H. MVERNIDER,\n\n Defendant-Appellant, Pro Se.\n\n\nCase No. 25-14369\n\n\n\nAppeal from the United States District Court\nfor the Middle District of Florida\nD.C. Docket No. 5:24-cr-00138-TPB-PRL-l\n\n\n RENEWED EMERGENCY MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE\n PENDING APPEAL, TO PRODUCE ORIGINAL AUDIO RECORDINGS,\n TO PRODUCE COMPLETE UNREDACTED AND UNALTERED\n TRANSCRIPTS, TO EXPEDITE TRANSMISSION OF THE COMPLETE\n RECORD, AND FOR RELATED RELIEF\n\n EMERGENCY RELIEF REQUESTED\n\nAppellant Robert H. Rivemider, proceeding pro se, respectfully renews his Emergency Motion\n\nfor Immediate Release Pending Appeal and requests production and preservation of the original\n\naudio recordings, complete unredacted and unaltered transcripts, \"disclosure of any requested\n\ntranscript redactions, alterations, corrections, or changes, and all record materials necessary for\n\nmeaningful appellate review.\n\n\nExpedited consideration is requested because Appellant has now served more than eleven (11)\n\nmonths in custody since his arrest on June 24,2025, substantially exceeding the advisory\n\n\n 1\n\fguideline range of three(3)to nine(9) months discussed during the revocation proceedings.\n\nAbsent immediate relief, Appellant risks serving the effective custodial portion ofthe sentence\n\nbefore this appeal can be fully litigated.\n\n\nThis motion is renewed pursuant to the Court\u2019s Order entered April 23, 2026 reinstating this\n\nappeal.\n\n\nI. INTRODUCTION\n\nThis appeal concerns the legality ofthe district court\u2019s exercise ofjurisdiction over Appellant\u2019s\n\nsupervised release proceedings, the validity ofthe warrant issued in this matter, the reliability of\n\nthe evidence relied upon by the district court, the accuracy and completeness oftranscripts, and\n\nthe sentence ultimately imposed.\n\n\nThe sentence in this matter was imposed on December 12, 2025. Nearly six months later.\n\nAppellant still has not received the eomplete record necessary to prosecute this appeal.\n\n\nThe primary record relief now required is preservation and production ofthe original audio\n\nrecordings of all proceedings, together with complete unredacted and unaltered transcripts. The\n\nJune 25,2025 and August 26,2025 proceedings were digitally recorded; no live court reporter\n\nwas present in the courtroom. The transcripts were later produced from electronic sound\n\nrecordings. Because Appellant disputes the accuracy of portions ofthe August 26 transcript, and\n\nbecause the transcripts themselves state they were produced from electronic sound recordings,\n\nthe original audio recordings are the best evidence of what occurred.\n\n\nAppellant has serious concern regarding the accuracy, completeness, alteration, and possible\n\nredaction oftranscripts in this case. The concern is not speculative. The August 26, 2025\n\n\n 2\n\ftranscript already reflects terminology materially different from that used during earlier\n\nproceedings regarding the alleged \u201cletter\u201d left by Probation Officer Padilla. Because several\n\nproceedings were recorded electronically rather than by a live court reporter, the original audio\n\nrecordings constitute the best evidence of what occurred and should be preserved and produced\n\nbefore any further transcripts are finalized, modified, corrected, altered, or redacted.\n\n\nAt the current pace, the appeal may extend beyond the effective custodial portion of Appellant\u2019s\n\nsentence once good-conduct time and First Step Act credits are properly applied. Continued\n\nincarceration under these circumstances constitutes irreparable harm and risks rendering the\n\nappeal meaningless.\n\n\nII. GROUNDS FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL AND RECORD\nRELIEF\n\nA. The Appeal Raises Substantial Questions Regarding Jurisdiction\n\n\nThis appeal raises substantial questions regarding whether the Middle District of Florida ever\n\nlawfully obtained jurisdiction over Appellant\u2019s supervised release.\n\n\nAppellant contends that the transfer ofsupervised release jurisdiction from the District of\n\nConnecticut to the Middle District of Florida was invalid because the District of Connecticut was\n\nnot informed of pending alleged supervised release violations at the time transfer was requested\n\nand accepted.\n\n\nAt the time jinisdiction was transferred. Appellant\u2019s supervised release was scheduled to expire\n\nin less than six months. The District of Connecticut had supervised Appellant for approximately\n\nfour and one-half years. There was no legitimate practical need to transfer supervision to the\n\n\n\n 3\n\fMiddle District of Florida so late in the supervision term, particularly where the alleged\n\nviolations had not been disclosed to the District of Connecticut before transfer. Appellant\n\ncontends the timing and circumstances ofthe transfer support his argument that the transfer was\n\nsought to obtain a more favorable forum after alleged violations had already occurred.\n\n\nThe missing docket entries in the district court proceedings, specifically docket entries 2 through\n\n7, may contain communications or representations relating to the transfer and warrant\n\nproceedings.\n\n\nIn addition. Appellant contends that supervised release had already expired prior to initiation of\n\nthe revocation proceedings once First Step Act credits are properly applied to the aggregate\n\nsentence.\n\n\n\n\nAppellant\u2019s supervised release began on May 14, 2020. Appellant contends that earned First Step\n\nAct credits from the original sentence reduced the effective expiration date of supervised release\n\nto approximately September 2024, prior to the challenged transfer proceedings and alleged\n\nviolations.\n\n\n\nSection 3583(e) gives district courts authority both to \u201cterminate\u201d and to \u201crevoke\u201d a term of\n\nsupervised release. Section 3583(e)(1) authorizes termination ofsupervised release. In Johnson\n\nV. United States, 529 U.S. 694,704(2000), the Supreme Court discussed the statutory distinction\n\nbetween termination and revocation. Appellant contends that when supervised release is\n\nterminated, it is ended, and the defendant is discharged from court supervision.\n\n\nHere,the public docket reflected \u201cCASE CLOSED\u201d and \u201cTERMINATED.\u201d Appellant raised\n\nthis issue in Avriting, in court, and at sentencing. Appellant also emailed Connecticut counsel\n\n\n 4\n\fRobert Frost in December 2024, before the January 2025 warrant proceedings, and counsel\n\nconfirmed the docket reflected transfer and termination. This directly relates to Appellant\u2019s\n\nbelief, counsel\u2019s understanding, and the jurisdictional question whether supervised release\n\nremained in effect.\n\n\n\nHad Connecticut counsel Robert Frost been informed ofthe proposed transfer before jurisdiction\n\nwas moved to Florida, counsel could have opposed transfer in the District of Connecticut. On\n\nNovember 18, 2024, before the transfer, ajudge in the same courthouse had issued an order\n\nrecognizing that First Step Act credits could apply toward supervised release. Appellant contends\n\ncounsel could have argued that supervised release had aheady expired in or around September\n\n2024, before transfer. Even if that rulmg was later reversed, the Connecticut court would have\n\nhad to either accept or reject that argument before transfer. The failure to notify Appellant or\n\ncounsel ofthe alleged violations and transfer request caused direct jurisdictional prejudice.\n\n\nThe appeal therefore presents substantial jurisdictional questions directly affecting the legality of\n\nthe revocation proceedings.\n\n\nB. Due Process Violations Relating to Transfer and Lack of Notice\n\n\nAppellant further contends that due process was violated because alleged violations were not\n\ndisclosed to Appellant, his Coimecticut coimsel, or the District of Connecticut before transfer\n\njurisdiction was requested.\n\n\nIf the District of Coimecticut had been informed that alleged violations existed before transfer.\n\nand if Appellant\u2019s coimsel had been notified, counsel could have opposed transfer and argued\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\fthat supervised release had already expired or should have been deemed expired based on First\n\nStep Act credits and then-existing authority in the District of Connecticut.\n\n\nInstead, the case w^as transferred without notice to Appellant or counsel ofthe pending or\n\ncontemplated violation allegations. This deprived Appellant ofthe opportunity to litigate\n\njurisdiction before the sentencing and supervising court that had overseen the case for years.\n\n\nC. The Appeal Raises Substantial Questions Regarding Reliability of Evidence, Witness\n\nCredibility, and Sentencing\n\n\nThe revocation proceedings depended substantially upon testimony and representations made by\n\nProbation Officer Padilla.\n\n\n\nAppellant previously filed motions establishing that Probation Officer Padilla made materially\n\ninconsistent statements regarding a letter allegedly left at Appellant\u2019s residence.\n\n\nSpecifically, Appellant recalls extensive questioning regarding a letter left at his residence. The\n\nissue is material because the alleged letter was central to the claimed supervised release\n\nviolations, including whether Appellant received the letter, whether Probation Officer Padilla\n\naccurately described what occurred, and whether the district court relied on materially inaccurate\n\ntestimony.\n\n\nAppellant further contends that Probation Officer Padilla\u2019s description ofthe alleged October\n\n2024 communication changed over time. At the June 25, 2025 hearing, court-appointed counsel\n\nreferred to \u201cthe letter that was left at the house.\u201d At the August 26,2025 hearing, the transcript\n\nstates that Probation Officer Padilla referred to a \u201cnotice\u201d left at Appellant\u2019s home and then to\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f'documents\u201d allegedly emailed back through Appellant\u2019s iCloud accormt. Appellant further\n\nrecalls testimony during the October 24,2025 revocation hearing that the item was placed on\n\nAppellant\u2019s vehicle windshield.\n\n\nThese inconsistencies are material because the alleged letter, notiee, or documents formed part of\n\nthe basis for the alleged failure-to-report and failure-to-provide-financial-information violations.\n\nAppellant previously moved for an investigation regarding the probation officer\u2019s statements.\n\nThe shift from \u201cletter\u201d to \u201cnotice\u201d or \u201cdocuments,\u201d and Appellant\u2019s recollection that the story\n\nlater became a placement on a car windshield, reinforces the need for the original audio\n\nrecordings and complete unredacted and unaltered transcripts so that the Court can determine\n\nwhat was actually said and whether the probation officer\u2019s testimony was reliable.\n\n\nThe transcripts and original audio recordings are therefore critical because they will establish the\n\nexact testimony provided by the probation officer and whether materially false statements were\n\npresented to the district court.\n\n\nAppellant further contends that statements relied upon during sentencing were materially false or\n\nmisleading, including:\n\n\n 1. statements regarding the underlying Connecticut case;\n\n 2. assertions that Appellant \u201cstole $21 million\u201d; and\n\n 3. the Government\u2019s assertion in district court docket entry 78, page 5, that Appellant\n\n \u201csimultaneously purchased two vehicles.\u201d\n\n\nAppellant disputes these assertions and contends they materially affected the sentence imposed.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\fAppellant further contends that losses associated with the underlying Connecticut case were\n\nsubstantially impacted by the collapse ofthe real estate market during the 2008 financial crisis,\n\nrather than theft offunds as characterized during sentencing.\n\n\nThe transcripts are also necessary because, at sentencing, the district court asked Appellant how\n\nmuch time he had already served on the original sentence. When Appellant stated that he had\n\nserved approximately eighty (80) months,the court imposed the maximum thirty-six-month\n\nrevocation sentence and stated words to the effect of, \u201c1 would give you more ifI could.\n\n\nAppellant contends this statement shows that the sentence was influenced by the court\u2019s view\n\nthat Appellant\u2019s sentence had previously been reduced to time served, rather than by the alleged\n\nsupervised release violations themselves.\n\n\nThe Connecticut court reduced Appellant\u2019s sentence to time served after Appellant completed\n\napproximately eighty (80) months in federal custody. Appellant completed that custodial\n\nsentence without receiving the benefit of First Step Act credits that did not yet exist when\n\nsentence was imposed. Appellant contends he completed the effective custodial portion of the\n\nsentence imder the statutes, case law, and Bureau ofPrisons program statements governing\n\nsentence calculation and credits.\n\n\n\nAny increase in the revocation sentence based on Appellant\u2019s prior sentence reduction to time\n\nserved, his medical vulnerability during the COVTD-19 public health emergency, or\n\ndisagreement with the Coimecticut court\u2019s release decision would be improper and materially\n\nprejudicial.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\fD. The Gladson Letter Demonsttates Reliance on Improper Sentencing Considerations and\n\nMaterially Disputed Facts\n\n\nAppellant has now obtained a copy ofthe September 8, 2025 letter submitted by Florida State\n\nAttorney William Gladson to the district court, attached as Exhibit A.\n\n\nThe letter expressly urged the district court to impose a lengthy prison sentence and specifically\n\nreferenced Appellant\u2019s \u201cbeliefs\u201d and \u201cideology\u201d as reasons why leniency should be denied.\n\n\nThe letter states:\n\n\n\n'His beliefs, ideology, and most importantly, his behavior... offend every notion of decency and\n\nrespect for the law.\n\n\nThe letter further states that Appellant was \u201cnot deserving of any leniency.\n\n\nThe letter also urged the district court to consider that Appellant\u2019s original federal sentence had\n\npreviously been reduced to time served, describing that relief as having been \u201cgraced with an\n\neai'ly release from his 144-month federal prison sentence.\n\n\nAppellant objects to that characterization. The Connecticut court reduced Appellant\u2019s sentence to\n\ntime served after Appellant had completed approximately eighty(80) months in federal custody\n\nand after considering Appellant\u2019s health, medical vulnerability, and the COVID-19 public health\n\nemergency. Appellant did not receive the benefit of First Step Act credits that did not exist when\n\nhe was sentenced.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\fAppellant contends that sentencing decisions must be based upon the factors set forth in 18\n\nU.S.C. \u00a7 3553(a), not upon disagreement with a defendant\u2019s beliefs, ideology, political\n\nviewpoints, or resentment that another federal judge previously reduced a sentence to time\n\nserved.\n\n\n\nThe letter further appears to advocate a harsher sentence based upon Appellant\u2019s prior sentence\n\nreduction rather than the conduct actually before the court in the revocation proceeding.\n\n\nThe Gladson letter also stated that Appellant \u201cunlawfully cast a ballot belonging to his deceased\n\nfather.\u201d Appellant disputes that characterization as materially incomplete and misleading. The\n\noriginal complaint from the Supervisor of Elections stated that no vote was cast. Appellant\n\nfurther states that no vote was counted. The ballot itself was never shown to the jury diuing trial.\n\nAfter the jury had left the courtroom,the trial judge handled an envelope, and a ballot fell out\n\nand was presented to the judge. The ballot therefore was not shown to the jury during\n\ndeliberations.\n\n\n\nAccordingly, the Gladson letter presented the state case to the federal sentencing court hi a\n\nmaterially prejudicial marmer. The letter characterized Appellant as having unlawfully cast a\n\nballot, while Appellant contends the state record showed no vote was cast, no vote was counted,\n\nand the ballot was not shown to the jury.\n\n\nThe Gladson letter also helps explain why the Florida prosecution and state conviction may have\n\nimproperly influenced detention and sentencing in this federal revocation case. At the June 25,\n\n2025 hearing. Probation Officer Padilla and the Government relied in part on the Florida case in\n\narguing that Appellant should remain detained. The district court later imposed the statutory\n\n\n\n 10\n\fmaximum thirty-six-month revocation sentence despite an advisory guideline range ofthree(3)\n\nto nine(9) months.\n\n\nWhen viewed together, the Gladson letter, the Florida case, the detention arguments, and the\n\nsentencing record raise substantial questions regarding whether the sentence was influenced by\n\nfactors unrelated to the alleged supervised release violations, including Appellant\u2019s beliefs.\n\nideology, prior sentence reduction to time served, and disputed state-case allegations.\n\n\nBecause the Gladson letter contained disputed and prejudicial information. Appellant requests\n\nproduction of any additional letters, emails, memoranda, victim-impact submissions, outside\n\ncommunications, or ex parte materials submitted to or received by the district court concerning\n\nAppellant, sentencing, revocation, detention, or supervised release, including any materials\n\nsimilar to the September 8, 2025 Gladson letter.\n\n\nThe Gladson letter is therefore material to this appeal and to Appellant\u2019s request for immediate\n\nrelease pending appeal.\n\n\nE. Delay in Production of Transcripts, Audio Recordings, and Record Materials\n\n\nAccording to communications received from the court reporter and clerk\u2019s office, certain\n\ntranscripts necessary for this appeal have already been completed.\n\n\nAppellant has been informed that transcripts were available and would be transmitted upon\n\npayment.\n\n\n\nFunding through the Criminal Justice Act has now been approved. Nevertheless, transmission of\n\nthe full record continues to be delayed.\n\n\n\n 11\n\fAppellant has also been informed that transcript deadlines have been extended until June 22,\n\n2026.\n\n\n\nAppellant further notes that the remaining proceedings to be transcribed appear to total less than\n\nthree hours. Appellant respectfully submits that a delay until Jime 22,2026 is unreasonable under\n\nthese circumstances, especially where Appellant remains incarcerated beyond the advisory\n\nguideline range. The extended delay heightens Appellant\u2019s concern regarding the accuracy.\n\ncompleteness, alteration, and possible redaction of transcripts and further supports production of\n\nthe original audio recordings.\n\n\nThe continued delay is causing substantial prejudice while Appellant remains incarcerated.\n\n\nThe transcript delay is especially prejudicial because Appellant has already served more than\n\neleven months in custody while awaiting appellate review. The remaining proceedings appear to\n\ntotal less than three hours of court time. Nevertheless, transcript deadlines have been extended\n\nuntil June 22,2026. Under these circumstances, continued delay risks mooting meaningful\n\nappellate review before Appellant can obtain the record necessary to prosecute this appeal.\n\n\nIf transcripts or audio recordings are aheady available, the Court should order immediate\n\ntransmission of all completed transcripts, original audio recordings, and complete unredacted and\n\nunaltered record materials without further delay so that this appeal may proceed.\n\n\nAppellant is concerned that prolonged delays in production oftranscripts and recordings central\n\nto the jurisdictional and sentencing issues raised on appeal may impair Appellant\u2019s ability to\n\nobtain timely and meaningful appellate review.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\fF. Documentary Evidence Establishes the Transcripts Were Already Available\n\n\nAppellant has obtained documentary evidence demonstrating that certain transcripts in this\n\nappeal were substantially completed and available well before the most recent extension request\n\nfiled in this Court.\n\n\n\nSpecifically, on April 3, 2026,the official court reporter advised Appellant's family\n\nrepresentative in writing that the transcripts from the July 9, 2025, October 24, 2025, and\n\nDecember 12, 2025 proceedings were available and could be purchased. See Exhibit B.\n\n\nThe court reporter further represented that the proceedings totaled approximately 175 pages and\n\nstated:\n\n\n\n As soon as I receive payment,I will begin transcribing the proceedings and will complete the\n\ntranscript(s) in 30 days or less.\u2019\n\n\nAppellant was subsequently informed that Criminal Justice Act funding for the transcripts had\n\nbeen approved.\n\n\nDespite this, an Application for Extension of Time to File Transcript was later filed in this appeal\n\nextending transcript deadlines until June 22, 2026. See Exhibit C.\n\n\nAs a result, nearly six months after sentencing. Appellant still does not possess the full record\n\nnecessary to prosecute this appeal while remaining incarcerated.\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\fTo the extent transcripts, audio recordings, or portions thereof have already been completed.\n\nAppellant respectfully requests that the Court order immediate transmission without awaiting\n\nadditional extension deadlines.\n\n\n\nThe April 3, 2026 email correspondence attached as Exhibit B further demonstrates that the\n\nofficial court reporter advised Appellant's family representative that the transcripts were already\n\navailable and could be purchased immediately. Specifically, the court reporter stated: \"The\n\ntranscripts are available whenever he is ready to purchase.\" This representation appears\n\ninconsistent with the subsequent requests for additional transcript extensions and further supports\n\nAppellant's request for immediate production of all completed transcripts, original audio\n\nrecordings, and complete unredacted and unaltered record materials.\n\n\n\n\nG. Request for Original Audio Recordings, Unaltered Record, and Complete Unredacted and\n\nUnaltered Transcripts\n\n\nAppellant requests that the primary focus ofrecord relief be preservation and production ofthe\n\noriginal audio recordmgs for all proceedings, together with complete unredacted and unaltered\n\ntranscripts.\n\n\nThe need for the original audio recordings is particularly acute because Appellant has identified\n\nmaterial inconsistencies concerning one ofthe central factual issues in the revocation\n\nproceedings. At the June 25, 2025 hearing, the matter was described as a \u201cletter\u201d left at\n\nAppellant\u2019s residence. In the August 26,2025 transcript, the matter became a \u201cnotice\u201d and later\n\n\u201cdocuments.\u201d Appellant further recalls testimony durmg the October 24,2025 hearing that the\n\n\n\n 14\n\fitem was placed on Appellant\u2019s vehicle windshield. These differing descriptions concern the\n\nsame alleged communication and directly affect the credibility ofthe Government\u2019s evidence\n\nand Probation Officer Padilla\u2019s testimony. The original audio recordings are therefore necessary\n\nto determine precisely what was said during each proceeding.\n\n\nThe June 25, 2025 and August 26,2025 proceedings were digitally recorded; no live court\n\nreporter was present in the courtroom. The transcripts were later produced from electronic sound\n\nrecordings.\n\n\nAppellant requests production ofthe original audio recordings for June 25,2025 and August 26,\n\n2025.\n\n\n\nAppellant further requests that the district court certify whether any January 14, 2025 hearing.\n\nconference, proceeding, ex parte communication, or audio recording exists.\n\n\nPrior to senteneing on December 12, 2025, while housed at Marion County Jail, Appellant\n\nreceived correspondence from the Clerk\u2019s Office indicating that parties could request redactions\n\nrelating to transcripts in this matter.\n\n\nBecause the transcripts and recordings in this appeal directly concern jurisdictional issues.\n\nwitness testimony, sentencing proceedings, and statements relied upon by the district court.\n\nAppellant respectfully requests preservation and production of the complete unredacted and\n\nunaltered transcripts and appellate record.\n\n\nAppellant further requests that, to the extent any party, agency, or individual requested or\n\nproposed redactions, alterations, changes, or corrections relating to transcripts or record materials\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\fin this case, Appellant be notified regarding the nature and scope of such requested redactions,\n\nalterations, changes, or corrections.\n\n\nThe transcripts and original audio recordings are central to Appellant\u2019s claims regarding\n\njurisdiction, the validity ofthe warrant proceedings, the testimony ofProbation Officer Padilla,\n\nand the factual basis relied upon during sentencing.\n\n\nAccordingly, preservation and production of a complete, unaltered, and unredacted appellate\n\nrecord is necessary to ensure meaningful appellate review.\n\n\nH. Dispute Regarding Accuracy of August 26,2025 Transcript and Request for Audio\n\nPreservation\n\n\n\nAppellant disputes the accuracy and completeness ofthe August 26, 2025 transcript.\n\n\nAppellant specifically recalls an extensive exchange during which he questioned Probation\n\nOfficer Padilla regarding a letter allegedly left at Appellant\u2019s residence. Appellant recalls that the\n\ndiscussion concerned a \u201cletter\u201d left at the residence.\n\n\n\nThe certified transcript presently provided refers to a \u201cnotice\u201d and \u201cdocuments,\u201d including\n\ntestimony that Appellant allegedly \u201cemailed me back the documents that I provided to him via\n\nhis iCloud accovmt.\u201d Appellant contends this does not accurately reflect the exchange as it\n\noccurred in open court.\n\n\nThis issue is material. The alleged letter was central to the claimed supervised release violations.\n\nincluding whether Appellant received the letter, whether Probation Officer Padilla accurately\n\ndescribed what occurred, and whether the district court relied on materially inaccurate testimony.\n\n\n\n 16\n\fAppellant requested access to the audio recording. The court reporter advised that Appellant\n\nwould have to ask the Clerk\u2019s Office, and that her understanding was that audio files are not\n\navailable to the public.\n\n\nAppellant has serious concern regarding the accuracy, completeness, alteration, and potential\n\nredaction of all transcripts generated in this case, especially transcripts generated from digital\n\naudio recordings rather than live courtroom reporting. Appellant does not rely on unrelated cases\n\nto prove misconduct here. Rather, Appellant seeks ordinary appellate protection: preservation of\n\nthe original audio recordings, production or in camera review ofthose recordings, disclosure of\n\nany requested redactions or changes, and correction or settlement ofthe record under Federal\n\nRule of Appellate Procedure 10(e).\n\n\nBeeause there is now a material dispute regarding whether the transcript truly discloses what\n\noccurred in the distriet court. Appellant respectfully requests that the Court order preservation of\n\nthe August 26,2025 audio recording, production ofthe audio recording for review by Appellant\n\nor the Court, and correction or settlement ofthe record pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate\n\nProcedure 10(e).\n\n\nAppellant further requests that no transcript be redacted, altered, changed, corrected, or\n\ntransmitted as final without preservation ofthe original audio reeording and disclosure of any\n\n /\u25a0\nrequested redactions, alterations, changes, or corrections.\n\n\nI. Prior Motion to Preserve Records Was Denied\n\n\n\nAfter sentencing. Appellant moved the district court to preserve all records in this matter.\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\fThat motion was denied.\n\n\n\nGiven Appellant\u2019s current dispute regarding the accuracy ofthe August 26, 2025 transcript, the\n\nexistence of digitally recorded proceedings, the unresolved question whether any January 14,\n\n2025 proceeding or communication occurred, and the failure to provide Appellant with complete\n\ndocket materials, preservation of all original recordings and record materials is necessary.\n\n\nJ. Ongoing Inability to Access Orders and Docket Materials\n\n\nAppellant further requests relief because this case has involved an ongoing pattern of docket\n\nentries and court orders being entered without Appellant receiving timely mailed copies and\n\nwithout family members being able to view the underlying documents through the public docket.\n\n\nThis problem has existed since the beginning ofthe Middle District of Florida proceedings.\n\nincluding missing or inaccessible docket entries 2 through 7. Appellant is incarcerated and must\n\nrely on mailed orders and limited family access to docket information. When orders are entered\n\nbut cannot be viewed on the public docket and are not mailed to Appellant, Appellant is deprived\n\nof meaningful notice.\n\n\nThis creates serious prejudice because certain orders trigger fourteen-day deadlines to respond.\n\nobject, seek reconsideration, or pursue appellate relief. Appellant cannot meaningfully comply\n\nwith deadlines for orders he cannot read and does not receive.\n\n\n\nJudge Lammens previously directed that the Clerk send Appellant orders entered by the court.\n\nAppellant did not receive those orders.\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\fThis ongoing lack of access further supports expedited production ofthe complete record,\n\nimmediate mailing of all orders and docket entries to Appellant, and preservation of Appellant\u2019s\n\nrights to challenge any order not timely served on him.\n\n\nK. Irreparable Harm and Need for Immediate Release\n\n\nAppellant has no^v served more than eleven months in custody for alleged technical violations.\n\n\nThe sentencing guideline range referenced during the proceedings was three(3)to nine (9)\n\nmonths.\n\n\n\nThe continued delay in produeing transcripts, audio recordings, and the complete record\n\nthreatens to moot meaningful appellate review because Appellant may complete the effective\n\ncustodial portion of the sentence before the appeal can be adjudicated.\n\n\nOnce good-eonduct time and First Step Act credits are properly applied. Appellant contends the\n\nremaining custodial exposure is substantially reduced.\n\n\nAppellant also has severely limited aceess to legal materials and transcript review while\n\nincarcerated, substantially impairing his ability to prosecute the appeal.\n\n\nUnder these circumstances, continued incarceration pending appeal is unjust and unnecessary.\n\n\nIII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF\n\nWHEREFORE,Appellant respectfully requests that this Court:\n\n\n 1. Grant immediate release pending appeal;\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\f2. Order preservation and production ofthe original audio recordings for all proceedings,\n\n including June 25,2025 and August 26, 2025;\n\n3. Order the district court to certify whether any January 14, 2025 hearing, conference.\n\n proceeding, ex parte communication, or audio recording exists;\n\n4. Order immediate transmission of all completed transcripts currently available;\n\n5. Order the district court to immediately authorize and transmit any remaining approved\n\n CJA payments necessary for release oftranscripts;\n\n6. Order production ofthe complete appellate record, including docket entries 2 through 7\n\n and all materials relied upon by the district court;\n\n7. Order that the September 8, 2025 Gladson letter, attached as Exhibit A,be included in the\n\n appellate record and considered as part of the sentencing record;\n\n8. Order production of any additional letters, emails, memoranda, victim-impact\n\n submissions, outside communications, or ex parte materials submitted to or received by\n\n the district court concerning Appellant, sentencing, revocation, detention, or supervised\n\n release, including any materials similar to the September 8, 2025 Gladson letter;\n\n9. Order certification regarding whether any ex parte communications or proceedings\n\n occurred relating to issuance ofthe arrest warrant;\n\n10, Expedite consideration of this appeal and all related motions;\n\n\n11. Order immediate transmission of any completed transcripts currently in existence and\n\n preservation ofthe complete and unaltered appellate record;\n\n12. Order preservation and production of complete unredacted and unaltered transcripts and\n\n require disclosure of any requested or proposed transcript redactions, alterations.\n\n changes, or corrections relating to this appeal;\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\f 13. Order preservation and production, or in camera review, ofthe August 26, 2025 audio\n\n recording and correction or settlement ofthe transcript under Federal Rule of Appellate\n\n Procedure 10(e);\n\n 14. Order that Appellant be served by mail with all orders, sealed or restricted docket entries\n\n that may be disclosed to Appellant, and any docket materials necessary to preserve his\n\n appellate rights, and that any response or objection deadline run from actual service on\n\n Appellant;\n\n 15. Grant such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.\n\n\nRespectfully submitted.\n\n\n\n\nWith Permission\n\n\nELECTRONIC SIGNATURE;/s/ Robert H Rivemider\n\n\n\nRobert H. Rivemider\nAppellant, Pro Se\nReg. No. 96006-004\nFCI Beckley Satellite Camp\nP.O. Box 350\nBeaver, West Virginia 25813\n\nDate: June 1, 2026\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\f CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\nI hereby certify that a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing Renewed Emergency Motion for\nImmediate Release Pending Appeal, to Produce Original Audio Recordings, to Produce\nComplete Unredacted and Unaltered Transcripts, to Expedite Transmission ofthe Complete\nRecord, and for Related Relief was placed in the US Mail on this 1st day of Jime, 2026,\naddressed to:\n\n\nOffice ofthe United States Attorney\nMiddle District of Florida\n\n\n\n\nWith Permission\n\n\nELECTRONIC SIGNATURE:/s/ Robert H Rivemider\n\n\nRobert H. Rivemider\nAppellant, Pro Se\n\nReg. No. 96006-004\nFCI Beckley Satellite Camp\nP.O. Box 350\nBeaver, WV 25813\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\f EXHIBIT A\n\n\n\nSeptember 8, 2025 Gladson Letter\n\n\n\n\n 23\n\f Case 5;24-cr-00138-TPB-PRL Document 106-1 (Court only) Filed 10/23/25 Page 1\n of 60 PaqelD /23\n\n C- E\" AS? S\". state AT-n?,\n\n\n r AVE\\jE\n\n CATV ij sos:\n '5\n X' ''.E ic-ErG?\n \\E -.se:: 5 I'ESCO\n\n\n WILLIAM M. GLAD50N\n STATE ATTORNEY\u2019\n\n \u2022; -r \\ ,\u00ab;\u00a3 :\n\n\n\n\n SepTt-mhcr S. 1025\n\n The Hon. Thomas Barber\n United States Drstrici Coun\n Middle District of Florida\n 207 XW 2- Street\n Ocala. FL 5--i~5\n\n\n in re; Roben Rivernider\n\n\n Dear Judge Barbe\".\n\n 1 understand >ou are the Judge assigned to handle the probation violation case of Robert Ri'.ernider. Less than rwo\n years ago. our ofnce convicted Rivernider of soter fraud, when he uniawfulK cast a baiioi belcnging to his deceased\n father in the 2020 eiectioit. He was adjudicated guilt>' of two feionics and one .misdemeanor in connection wifn that\n crime. The iowest pemtissible sentence was 12\u201c months in the \u201clorida Depanment of Corrections. Notwiihstandins;\n litis, and o'-er the state's abjection, the trial court detennined that a downward departure was warranted - he was to\n sen e no prison. The state lias appealed that departure and it remains pending as ofthe time of this w riling. .AdmiuedK.\n ! am not lantiiiar with tederai sentencing law. 1 ant aware. howe\\ er. that at the time of his voter fraud conviciicn.\n Riventider had a;read> been graced with an eari> release front his !44-nto:nh fedenji prison sentence.\n\n As liie ciiief prosecuting officer of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, it is position that Ri%erTtider has eanted a iengihv\n prison sentence. His beiieis. ideologv. and most iniponanth. his behavior, expressed repeatedh during his sentencing\n hearing, oftend ever> notion cf decency and respect tmr the law. h is axiomatic that someone who denes auiitoritx\n poses a dancer those cf us who choose to obe> it. A person who disregards the rigcts of his \\ ietims. and most\n intpcnantit. shotss contentpi for the government upon which ite now seeks redress, is not desetv ing of a:t> leniency.\n1\n Thank sou forsour attention to this matter, iftiicre is ans additionai mi'onnation that vou need, piease do not hesitate\nI\n to ask.\n\n\n S'Prv^crc\u2019:\\ .\n!\n\n \\\n \\\n /\n\n\n\n\n W'. iaiii M. Ci n\n\f EXHIBIT B\n\n\n\nApril 3, 2026 Emails from Court Reporter Rebekah Loclcwood Regarding Transcript Availability\n\n\n\n\n 24\n\fTranscript(s) Estimate, USA v. Robert Rivernider, 5:24-CR-138\n1 message\n\nRebekah Lockwood Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 8:43 AM\nTo; LK081662@gmail.com\n\n Good morning, Ms. Keller.\n\n I reported three hearings in Mr. Rivernider's case. They total to approximately 175 pages.\n\n 12/12/2025 Final Revocation before Judge Barber: 60 pages\n 10/24/2025 Revocation before Judge Barber: 100 pages\n 7/9/2025 Motion before Judge Barber: 15 pages\n\n 175 pages x $4.40 per page (30-day turnaround) = $770.00\n\n Please prepare a check or money order made out to me and mail it to 801 North Florida .Avenue, 2nd Floor, 1 arnpa,\n Florida 33602.\n\n\n As soon as I receive payment, 1 will begin transcribing the proceedings and will complete the transcript(s) in 30 days\n or less. I will email you a PDF of the transcript(s). If my page estimation is under, I will invoice you for the remaining\n balance. If my page estimation is over, I will issue a refund check for any overage.\n\n Please let me know if you have any questions.\n\n Thanks,\n\n\n\n\n Rebekah M. Lockwood, RDR, CRR\n Official Court Reporter to the\n Honorable Thomas P. Barber\n United States District Court\n Middle District of Florida\n (813) 301-5380\n Sam M. Gibbons U.S. Courthouse\n 801 North Florida Avenue\n 2nd Floor\n Tampa, Florida O 602\n\f Gmail\n\n\nTranscript(s) Estimate, USA v. Robert RIvernfder, 5:24-CR-138\n1 message\n\nLoretta Keller Fri, Apr 3,2026 at 8:51 AM\nTo; Rebekah Lockwood \n\n Thank you for the prompt response, I will need to contact my brother to see how to pay for this. I had no idea the\n cost woukd be so high. He has had no income since his arrest in June. And 1 am not is a position to pay that for him.\n 1 will let you know what we can do. Again thank you so much.\n [Quoted text hidden]\n\fQGmail\n\nTranscript(s) Estimate, USA v. Robert Rivernider, 5:24-CR-138\n1 message\n\nRebekah Lockwood Fri, Aprs,2026 at 8:54 AM\nTo: Loretta Keller \n You're welcome! The transcripts are available whenever he is ready to purchase.\n [Quoted text hidden]\n\f EXfflBIT C\n\n\n\nEleventh Circuit Transcript Extension Order and Application for Extension of Time to File\n Transcript\n\n\n\n\n 25\n\fUSCAp^^C^^;\u00ae943\u00ae)CuBf30&mar1t13\u00ae3974g^.te BMiF 3^20f&geP^g^:11 of 1\n -^?eceN|5NITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT\n Application for Extension ofTime to File Transcript\n ] and for Waiver ofFee Reduction\n // (Please type or print. Application must be completed infull.)\n SMm^: USA V. Robert Rivernider\n le:\n\n use A No: 25-14369 DC No.: 5:24-CR-138\n\n ._06/22/2026\n Date extension requested to:\n Reasons for extension request:\n Heavy court calendar, trials, vacation\n\n\n Date transcript order received: 04/22/2026\n . 04/22/2026\n Date satisfactory arrangements for paying cost oftranscript made:\n Pages in this appeal: 1)Transcribed 0 2)Not transcribed 275\n\n For all other transcripts due, list:\n\n Docket No. Date Ordered Date Due No.Pages No.Pages to\n Completed be Completed\n\n 8;23-CR-293 04/13/2026 5/13/2026 0 330\n\n 8:24-CR-22 04/28/2026 06/01/2026 0 85\n\n\n\n\n . 80 . 80\n Next 30 days:\n Estimated percentage oftime in court during past 30 days:\n Number of extensions requested in past 12 months:\n If this extension is granted, do you agree to employ a substitute reporter to assist you in completing this\n transcript by the new due date? If not, please explain why: YES\n\n\n Icertify by my signatwe thatIhave sent a copy ofthis request to the districtjudge who tried this case; to\n the ChiefDistrictJudge ofthis district; to the disMct court clerk; and to all counsel(or pro se parties) of\n record(11th Cir. R. 11-1).\n\n Court Reporter Signature: Date: 05/07/2026\n\n . Rebekah Lockwood\n Court Reporter Name(Print): Phone Number: (813)301-5380\n r.lockwooduscr@gmail.com\n\n\n Extension: GRANTED DENIED Fee Reduction: WAIVED NOT WAIVED\n\n\n Transcript Due Date: 6-22-26 10% Discount Provision in effect on:\n 20% Discount Provision in effect on:\n\n David J. Smith, Clerk of Court\n 5-7-2026\n Bv: /s/RVeals Date:\n\n Rev. 8/22\n\f PRESS FIRMLY TO SEAL\n ff SUSTAINABLE\n FORESTRY\n INITIATIVE\n Certified Sourcing\n PRESS FIRMLY TO SEAL\n PRIORITY MAIL\n FLAT RATE ENVELOPE\n PAPER\n O POSTAGE REQUIRED\n www.sfjprogram.org\n sn-00061 POUCH\n\n\n\n\n UNITEDSTATES PRIORI!\n POSTAL SERVICE\u00ae MAIL\u00ae UNITEDSTATES\n POSTAL SERVICE, Click-N-Ship\u00ae\n usps.com 9405 5301 0935 5386 9112 94 0111 2001 0003 0303\n $11.12\n\u25a0 Expected delivery date specified for domestic use. US POSTAGE\n\n\n\n\u25a0 Domestic shipments include $100 of insurance (restrictions apply).*\n\u25a0 USPS Tracking\u00ae service included for domestic and many international destir\n P 06/01/2026\n 1 lb 0 oz\n mm\n\n\n Mailed from 34785 464718745734938\n\n **\n\u25a0 Limited international insurance. PRIORITY MAIL\u00ae\n\u25a0 When used internationally, a customs declaration form is required. ROBERT RIVERNIDER\n . Created 2026-06-01\n Flat Rate Envelope\n 14 S BOBWHITE RD\n WILDWOOD FL 34785-9011 RDC 03\n*lnsurance does not cover certain items. For details regarding claims exclusions see the\nDomestic Mail Manual at http://pe.usps.com. C007\n** See International Mail Manual at http://pe.usps.com for availability and limitations of coverage.\n\n\n\n US APPEALS CT - 11TH CIRCUIT\n CLERK OF THE COURT\nFLAT RATE ENVELOP 56 FORSYTH ST NW\n ATLANTA GA 30303-2218\nONE RATE \u25a0 ANY WEIGHT\n USPS TRACKING #\n\n\n\n '^T^chedule free Package Picku\nTRACKED \u25a0 INSURED Qu scan the QR code.\n\n\n 9405 5301 0935 5386 9112 94\n\n\n\n\n PS00001000014\n III EP14F November 2025\n j:\n\n\n\n USPS.COM/PIGKUP\n LEGAL MAIL\n CASE NO. 25-14369\n\n\n\n\n 00:121/2x91/2\n T\n\n\n\n\n SKNA\n I\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-27T09:43:20.822578-07:00","document_number":"44","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"011014539647","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-27T09:43:16.576983-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-27T09:43:16.593906-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-08","time_filed":null,"entry_number":44,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-08.001","pacer_sequence_number":10802579,"description":"MOTION Renewed emergency motion for immediate release... filed by Appellant Robert Rivernider. Opposition to Motion is Unknown [44] [Entered: 08/07/2026 10:44 AM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/471348624/","id":471348624,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73638409/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486750876/","id":486750876,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73638409/40/united-states-v-robert-rivernider/","date_created":"2026-07-18T10:44:37.261429-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T05:06:54.278240-07:00","sha1":"5d9f85192a5c9a6df2d67c098d451ada41667b14","page_count":15,"file_size":6178502,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230.40.0_1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230.40.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":2,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"sony\n\nwe\nv RECEIVED\n\nOFISCA11 Casd: 25-14369 Document: 40 Date Filed: 06/29/2026 Page: 1 of 15\n\nTHE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\nFOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\nPlaintiff-Appellee,\n\nV.\n\nROBERT H. RIVERNIDER,\nDefendant-Appellant.\n\nCase No. 25-14369-}\n\nREPLY TO UNITED STATES\u2019 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANT\u2019S\nEMERGENCY MOTION AND NOTICE REGARDING SUBSEQUENTLY MAILED\nRENEWED EMERGENCY MOTION\nAppellant Robert H. Rivernider, proceeding pro se, respectfully submits this Reply to the United\n\nStates\u2019 Response in Opposition to Appellant\u2019s Emergency Motion, App. Doe. 37.\n;\n\nI. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n\nThis Reply is directed to the Government\u2019s Response to Appellant\u2019s earlier Emergency Motion.\nBefore learning of the Government\u2019s Response, Appellant had already prepared and mailed a\nRenewed Emergency Motion based upon newly discovered information that became available\n\nonly after the original motion was filed.\n\nAppellant has separately filed a Notice of Delivery advising the Court that the subsequently\nmailed Renewed Emergency Motion was delivered to the Clerk\u2019s Office on June 8, 2026, but\n\nhad not appeared on the docket when that notice was prepared.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 40 Date Filed: 06/29/2026 Page: 2 of 15\n\nBecause Appellant is incarcerated and proceeding pro se, he does not have electronic access to\nthe Court\u2019s docket and must rely upon institutional mail or family members to determine whether\nfilings have occurred. Appellant did not know the Government had filed its Response until a\n\nfamily member checked the docket.\n\nAppellant also did not receive notice that the Gladson letter had been approved for disclosure,\ndid not receive the Government\u2019s request for an extension of time, and did not receive timely\nnotice of related court activity. This is precisely why Appellant seeks release and record relief:\nhe cannot meaningfully litigate this appeal from custody when he does not timely receive court\n\norders, legal mail, transcripts, or docket activity.\n\nAfter receiving the Gladson letter and two transcript volumes that Appellant contends raise\nserious issues requiring review of the original audio recordings, Appellant prepared and mailed a\nRenewed Emergency Motion raising those newly discovered issues before learning that the\n\nGovernment had already responded to the earlier motion.\n\nAccordingly, this Reply should be construed as responding to the Government\u2019s opposition to\nthe earlier emergency motion and should not be interpreted as abandoning or limiting the\nadditional grounds and exhibits contained in Appellant\u2019s subsequently mailed Renewed\n\nEmergency Motion.\n\nIi. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT ADDRESS THE CORE MERITS\nThe Government\u2019s response does not address the merits of Appellant\u2019s jurisdictional claims, the\n\nlegality of the transfer proceedings, the missing docket entries, the January 14, 2025 warrant\n\fUSCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 40 Date Filed: 06/29/2026 Page: 3of15\n\nproceedings, the Gladson letter, the disputed testimony of Probation Officer Padilla, the accuracy\n\nof the transcripts, or Appellant\u2019s request for original audio recordings.\n\nInstead, the Government relies primarily on a procedural argument under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3143(b),\n\ncontending that the district court did not make findings regarding flight risk and danger.\n\nThat argument should not defeat emergency relief. Appellant has repeatedly sought release,\naccess to legal materials, transcripts, record materials, and meaningful appellate review. The\ndistrict court did not make full \u00a7 3143(b) findings, but that omission should not prevent this\nCourt from granting relief or, alternatively, ordering an immediate limited remand for expedited\n\nfindings.\n\nIll. THE TRANSFER TIMELINE RAISES A SUBSTANTIAL JURISDICTIONAL\nQUESTION\n\nThe Government\u2019s suggestion that the transfer occurred in March 2024 is materially incomplete.\n\nThe PROB 22 form shows that Judge Chatigny signed Part 1 on March 28, 2024, but Part 1\nexpressly provided that jurisdiction would transfer only \u201cupon\u201d the Middle District of Florida\u2019s\norder accepting jurisdiction. The receiving court\u2019s case was not opened until November 22,\n\n2024, as docket entry 1 in Case No. 5:24-cr-00138-TPB-PRL.\n\nFurther, the transfer acceptance form appearing in the District of Connecticut case does not show\na March 2024 acceptance by the Middle District of Florida. Rather, the Florida acceptance\n\nappears to have been signed by Judge Lammens on or about December 9, 2024.\n\nAppellant is aware of no District of Connecticut docket entry in March 2024 reflecting a\n\ncompieted transfer to the Middle District of Florida. The apparent March 28, 2024 signature-was\n\fUSCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 40 Date Filed: 06/29/2026 Page: 4of 15\n\nPart 1 only and was expressly conditional upon acceptance by the receiving court. The operative\n\nacceptance did not occur in March 2024.\n\nThis timing is critical. The alleged violations occurred between May and November 2024. Thus,\nwhen the receiving court accepted jurisdiction, the alleged violations had already occurred or\nwere already known to probation. Appellant contends that the District of Connecticut, Appellant,\nand Connecticut counsel Robert Frost were not informed of those alleged violations before\n\nacceptance of transfer.\n\nThe transfer issue is governed by 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3605, which requires transfer \u201cwith the\nconcurrence of such court.\u201d Because federal courts must assure themselves of jurisdiction before\nexercising power, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, waived, or created by docket terminology. See\nSteel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998); Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S.\n\n506 (1868).\n\nHad counsel been notified before transfer, he could have objected and argued that supervised\nrelease had already expired based upon First Step Act credits under then-existing District of\nConnecticut authority, including Rivera-Perez v. Stover, 757 F. Supp. 3d 204, 212-13 (D. Conn.\n\n2024).\nThe failure to provide notice caused direct jurisdictional prejudice.\n\nIV. THE GOVERNMENT RELIES ON DOCKET MATERIALS APPELLANT DOES\nNOT HAVE\n\nThe Government cites docket entry 6. That docket entry falls within the missing range of docket\n\nentries 2 through 7, which Appellant has repeatedly requested but has not received.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 40 Date Filed: 06/29/2026 Page: 5of 15\n\nThe Government\u2019s reliance on docket entry 6 confirms that the Government possesses and relies\nupon materials Appellant does not have. That is precisely why Appellant seeks production of the\n\ncomplete record, including docket entries 2 through 7.\n\nV. DOC. 128 DID NOT PROVIDE THE COMPLETE RECORD\n\nThe Government suggests Appellant already received relief regarding record materials. That is\n\nincomplete.\n\nDoc. 128 did not provide Appellant with docket entries 2 through 7, transcripts, original audio\nrecordings, the complete appellate record, sealed or restricted materials, or other materials\n\nnecessary to litigate the jurisdictional and due process issues.\n\nDoc. 128 merely directed the Clerk, \u201cas a courtesy,\u201d to send a docket sheet and copies of Docs.\n107, 109, 113, 114, and 115. It further stated that any additional materials would have to be\n\nrequested at fifty cents per page.\n\nThat order did not cure the record-access problem.\n\nVI. APPELLANT IS NOT A FLIGHT RISK OR DANGER\n\nThe existing record shows Appellant is neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community.\n\nThe District of Connecticut previously determined Appellant was not a flight risk or danger\nwhen it allowed him to remain on pretrial release for approximately thirty-four months from\n2011 to 2014 before self-surrendering. Appellant complied with that release and self-\nsurrendered. That history strongly supports release now, where the alleged violations are non-\n\nviolent and Appellant has already served more than the advisory guideline range.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 40 Date Filed: 06/29/2026 Page: 6of 15\n\nAppellant also remained in the community on supervised release for approximately four and one-\nhalf years. The violations at issue are non-violent and involve reporting, financial disclosure,\nrestitution, and supervision issues. They do not involve violence, weapons, narcotics, threats, or\n\ndanger to any person.\n\nAppellant learned of the warrant on or about January 19, 2025. He did not flee. Instead, he\nattempted to determine who issued the warrant and why, because the docket reflected that the\ncase was closed and terminated. Appellant even filed a motion in the Middle District of Florida\n\nasking whether that court had issued a warrant.\n\nThe Government identifies no evidence that Appellant poses a physical danger to the public.\n\nVII. THE APPEAL IS NOT FOR DELAY\nThis appeal ts not for delay. Appellant seeks expedited review, immediate access to the complete\nrecord, production of original audio recordings, complete unredacted and unaltered transcripts,\n\nand resolution of substantial jurisdictional issues.\n\nA party seeking delay would not request immediate transcripts, original recordings, and\n\nexpedited appellate review.\n\nVIII. THE APPEAL PRESENTS SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS\n\nThis appeal presents substantial questions of law and fact, including:\n\n1. whether the Middle District of Florida validly obtained jurisdiction;\n\n2. whether transfer occurred without notice to Appellant or Connecticut counsel;\n\fUSCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 40 Date Filed: 06/29/2026 Page: 7 of 15\n\n3. whether supervised release had already expired or should have been deemed expired\nbased on First Step Act credits;\n\n4. whether docket entries 2 through 7 contain material transfer or warrant information;\n\n5. whether a January 14, 2025 ex parte proceeding or communication occurred;\n\n6. whether Probation Officer Padilla gave materially inconsistent or false testimony;\n\n7. whether the Gladson letter improperly influenced sentencing;\n\n8. whether the district court relied on inaccurate information at sentencing;\n\n9. whether original audio recordings are necessary to determine what occurred; and\n\n10. whether the Government and Bureau of Prisons are improperly treating Appellant\u2019s\nrevocation term as a \u201cnew sentence\u201d for credit-denial purposes while relying on the\n\noriginal conviction and sentence to justify imprisonment.\n\nPadilla was the central witness. Appellant contends that accurate transcripts and original audio\nrecordings will show material inconsistencies regarding the alleged letter, notice, or documents\nthat formed part of the violation allegations: If that testimony is shown to be matertally false or\n\nunreliable, the revocation judgment cannot stand.\n\nThis appeal also presents a substantial procedural question under Federal Rule of Criminal\nProcedure 32.1. Appellant was arrested in June 2025, but the final revocation hearing did not\noccur until December 12, 2025. Appellant contends that the delay prejudiced him because he\nremained detained beyond the three-to-nine-month advisory guideline range while lacking access\nto transcripts, docket materials, original audio recordings, and legal matertals necessary to\n\ndefend against the alleged violations and preserve appellate issues.\n\nIX. THE GLADSON LETTER RAISES A SERIOUS SENTENCING ISSUE\n\nJ\n\fUSCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 40 Date Filed: 06/29/2026 Page: 8of 15\n\nThe Government does not address the Gladson letter.\n\nThat letter urged the district court to impose a lengthy prison sentence and expressly referenced\nAppellant\u2019s \u201cbeliefs\u201d and \u201cideology\u201d as reasons leniency should be denied. It also characterized\nAppellant\u2019s prior sentence reduction to time served as having been \u201cgraced with an early\n\nrelease.\u201d\n\nThose statements raise serious concerns that the statutory maximum revocation sentence was\n\ninfluenced by improper considerations.\n\nThe Gladson letter also stated that Appellant \u201cunlawfully cast a ballot belonging to his deceased\nfather.\u201d Appellant disputes that characterization. Appellant contends that state-case materials\nshow no vote was counted, that the ballot was not shown to the jury, and that the underlying facts\n\nwere materially disputed.\nThe Government\u2019s opposition does not rebut any of this.\n\nX. APPELLANT HAS ALREADY SERVED MORE THAN THE GUIDELINE RANGE\n\nAppellant has served more than eleven months in custody since June 24, 2025.\n\nThe advisory guideline range discussed during the revocation proceedings was three to nine\nmonths. If Appellant prevails on any substantial issue resulting in resentencing within or near the\n\nadvisory range, the likely result would be time served or immediate release.\n\nIf Appellant\u2019s aggregation and sentence-computation arguments are correct, Appellant has\n\nalready completed the custodia! portion of his sentence or is imminently eligible for release,\n\fUSCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 40 Date Filed: 06/29/2026 Page:9of 15\n\nmaking continued incarceration during the pendency of this appeal an irreparable injury that\n\ncannot later be remedied.\nContinued incarceration risks rendering the appeal practically meaningless.\nXI. THE RECORD REMAINS INCOMPLETE AND APPELLANT CANNOT\n\nMEANINGFULLY LITIGATE FROM CUSTODY\n\nThe Government acknowledges that the final revocation transcript remains unavailable and is not\n\ndue until June 22, 2026.\n\nEven when transcripts are completed, Appellant may not receive them promptly. Eleventh\nCircuit notices mailed to Appellant at FCI Beckley were delivered to the institution on May 28,\n2026, according to tracking, but Appellant did not timely receive them. Appellant has also\n\nexperienced delays receiving legal mail and filings in his pending \u00a7 2241 case.\n\nAppellant\u2019s phone calls and emails are limited to ten minutes at a time, with only one phone or\nemail session permitted during each half-hour interval. Appellant also has limited access to legal\n\nmaterials and transcripts, including materials that can only be reviewed through staff.\n\nThese circumstances materially impair Appellant\u2019s ability to prosecute this appeal.\n\nXI. THE GOVERNMENT\u2019S AND BOP\u2019S INCONSISTENT TREATMENT OF THE\nREVOCATION SENTENCE PRESENTS A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION\n\nThe Government and the Bureau of Prisons continue to characterize Appellant\u2019s December 12,\n2025 revocation imprisonment as though it were an entirely new sentence for administrative\ncomputation purposes while simultaneously relying upon the original 2013 conviction and\n\nsentence to justify that imprisonment.\n\fUSCA11 Case: 25-14869 Document:40 Date Filed: 06/29/2026 Page: 10 of 15\n\nThat position is inconsistent with governing law.\n\nIn Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694 (2000), the Supreme Court explained that post-\nrevocation imprisonment is attributable to the original conviction. Likewise, Mont v. United\nStates, 139 S. Ct. 1826 (2019), recognized that supervised release and revocation imprisonment\n\nremain components of the original sentence imposed by the sentencing court.\n\nSimilarly, the Eleventh Circuit\u2019s decision in United States v. Barrus, No. 23-10154 (11th Cir.\n2024), recognizes that revocation imprisonment constitutes a modification or continuation of the\n\noriginal sentence rather than punishment for a new criminal offense.\n\nThe Government\u2019s own filings in related proceedings reinforce this conclusion by relying\nextensively upon original 2013 sentencing materials, presentence reports, plea documents, and\noriginal sentencing records. Those materials would be irrelevant if the revocation imprisonment\n\ntruly constituted an independent new sentence.\n\nYet the Bureau of Prisons stmultaneously refuses to aggregate the original imprisonment and\nrevocation imprisonment for computation purposes and refuses to apply First Step Act credits on\n\nthe theory that the revocation term constitutes a new sentence.\n\nThe BOP\u2019s position is also constitutionally significant. If the December 12, 2025 imprisonment\nwere truly a new criminal sentence rather than a revocation-based modification of the original\nsentence, then new constitutional protections associated with a new criminal prosecution would\nhave been required. Appellant was not indicted, tried, or convicted of any new federal offense.\nThe only lawful basis for the revocation imprisonment is its relationship to the original\n\nconviction and original sentence.\n\n10\n\fUSCA11 Case: 25-14869 Document:40 Date Filed: 06/29/2026 Page: 11 of 15\n\nThe Government and BOP therefore cannot have it both ways. If the revocation term is imposed\nbecause of the original conviction, it must be treated consistently as a continuation or\nmodification of the original sentence for administrative computation, aggregation, Good Conduct\n\nTime, First Step Act credits, and release-eligibility purposes.\n\nThis inconsistency presents a substantial question of law directly affecting Appellant\u2019s continued\ncustody and further demonstrates irreparable harm from continued incarceration while this\n\nappeal remains pending.\n\nXIE ALTERNATIVE REQUEST FOR LIMITED REMAND\nIf this Court concludes that release cannot be granted without district-court findings under \u00a7\n\n3143(b), Appellant respectfully requests an immediate limited remand for expedited findings on:\n\n1. whether Appellant is a flight risk;\n\n2. whether Appellant is a danger to the community;\n\n3. whether the appeal is for delay;\n\n4. whether the appeal raises substantial questions;\n\n5. whether those questions are likely to result in reversal, vacatur, resentencing, or a\nsentence less than the time already served plus the expected duration of the appeal; and\n\n6. whether original audio recordings and complete unredacted and unaltered transcripts\n\nmust be preserved and produced.\n\nXIV. CONCLUSION\nThe Government\u2019s opposition should be rejected. The Government does not address the central\n\njurisdictional, transcript, audio, Gladson-letter, or due-process issues. Appellant has already\n\n11\n\fUSCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document:40 Date Filed: 06/29/2026\n\nserved more than the advisory guideline range, the record remains incomplete, and Appellant\n\ncannot meaningfully litigate this appeal from custody due to continuing legal-mail, transcript,\n\nand legal-material restrictions.\n\nPage: 12 of 15\n\nAppellant respectfully requests that this Court grant release pending appeal, order production and\n\npreservation of original audio recordings and complete unredacted and unaltered transcripts, or\n\nalternatively order an immediate limited remand for expedited \u00a7 3143(b) findings.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nDated: June 18, 2026\nRobert Rwernider\nWith Permission\n\nELECTRONIC SIGNATURE:/s/ Robert Rivernider\nRobert Rivernider, Pro Se\n\nRobert Rivernider\n\nReg. No. 96006-004\n\nFC] Beckley Satellite Prison Camp\nP.O. Box 350\n\nBeaver, WV 25813\n\n12\n\fUSCA11 Case: 25-14869 Document:40 Date Filed: 06/29/2026 Page: 13 of 15\n\nCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\nI hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply to United States\u2019 Response in\n\nOpposition to Appellant\u2019s Emergency Motion and Notice Regarding Subsequently Mailed\n\nRenewed Emergency Motion was placed in the United States Mail on this 18th day of June 2026,\n\naddressed to:\n\nOffice of the United States Attorney\nMiddie District of Florida\n\nRespectfully submitted,\nRobert Rivernider\n\nWith Permission\n\nELECTRONIC SIGNATURE:/s/ Robert Rivernider\nRobert Rivernider, Pro Se\n\n13\n\fof 15\niy\n\n69\u20acVT-Sz \u201cON 3SVD\n\nTIvWw 1937\n\n- 4\n\n6\u20ac L9E6 VEES SEGO LOSS SOE\n\nON\n\n# DNIMOVUEL SdSN\n\n8L22-E0E0E VO VINVILY\nMN LS HLASHOS 9S\nLYNOD AHL AO WY3A19\n\n=\n\noe\n\nData Eilad: NG/\nTW are\n\nVAS\n\n\u00a3009\n\u20ac0 00Y\n\nadojeauz aey 1e/4\n61-90-9202 Pelealg\n\nLINDYIOD HLbL - LO STVWAddv SN\n\n-LO6-S8ZrE 14 GCOOMATIM\nGY SLIHMEO8 S #1\n\nae aint: AN\nUGCUTITCTIT. +0\n\n@TIVIN ALINOIYd\n\nBLLEZEGSOBEOPSE SBLPE Wid. payeyy\n\n\u20ac0\u20ac0 \u00a3000 +002 L110 GE LIES BES GE6O LOES SOrE\n\n2004) 1\n9202/02/90\n\nYACINYSAIY LYagOu\n39vLSOd sn\nZL LES\n\nwoo'sdsn\n\n\u201cSalvis azn ee\n\nrete 2!\nWOU) S/eeqdy jo une yng uk b\nJOIAHAS SIWHSHYW 'S'A\nGauINOSY 3OvLsod 9202 68 Nar\nSdOTSANS 3LVY LVS\n\nTWA ALIHOMHd\n\nit nhIAAR ee oe.\n\nG/LEXZ/LZL:GO\n\n\u20acZ0Z 48q0190 4p ld3 \u00a5LOO00LOO00Sd\n\nNT\n\nQ3yNSNI # GayMovy.\n\nfeae\n\naa\na\n\nANHOid/WOO'Sdsn\n\nLHDISM ANV @ ALVd SN\n\nSIdOTSANS ALVY LV1:\n\n\"@PO9 HO 64) ueoS\nbid eHeyowd ee) einpEYyos 1\n\n\"eBeiea0s Jo suopeywl) pue Ayqeyene 40) woo'sdsnedy/:dyy ye jenuey,y [eI |eEuOWeWeU eeg\n\n\u2018woo'sdsn'ed//:dyjy ye yenuey |/eyW ONSelWC\nSU} 68S SUOISNjOXe SlUje}o BulpseBei sijejep 4044 \u201cswo}) Ujejse9 JeAOO JOU SeOp eOUBINSL\n\n\u2018peujnbe, Ss} UOJ UORBIBjOSp SWOYSND k \u2018AjeUO!eUEqU! pesn usuM\n\n+s COUBINSU! [BUONEWIE}U! PeyWI]\n\nIWEURSEpP [BUOHeWe]U] Aue pUue SSeWOP JO} pepnjoUu! soles ZOUIYOeL SdSN\n\u00ab (Ajdde suonoyseu) soueunsul jo 99 L$ epnjou! syuewdius Sysewog\n\n*@SN SHSSWOP JO) peyjoeds eyep AusAljop peyoedxy\n\nTIVIW\neALIYOIYd\n\n\u00b0ADIAYAS TVLSOd\nSALVLS G3ALINN |\n\noh\n\nTWAS OL ATW SSIUd TWAS OL ATWHUld SSIUd\n\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-07-18T10:45:13.915168-07:00","document_number":"40","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"011014481731","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-18T10:44:37.230797-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-18T10:44:37.240246-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-29","time_filed":null,"entry_number":40,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-29.002","pacer_sequence_number":10774522,"description":"REPLY to RESPONSE to Motion [35] filed by Appellant Robert Rivernider. [Entered: 07/02/2026 09:37 AM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/471348623/","id":471348623,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73638409/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486750875/","id":486750875,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73638409/39/united-states-v-robert-rivernider/","date_created":"2026-07-18T10:44:37.194429-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-18T10:44:37.215155-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"39","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"011014481724","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-18T10:44:37.154397-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-18T10:44:37.170636-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-29","time_filed":null,"entry_number":39,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-29.001","pacer_sequence_number":10774518,"description":"Notice of receipt: Notice of Delivery of Renewed Emergency Motion as to Appellant Robert Rivernider. [Entered: 07/02/2026 09:34 AM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/471348622/","id":471348622,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73638409/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486750874/","id":486750874,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73638409/38/united-states-v-robert-rivernider/","date_created":"2026-07-18T10:44:37.117092-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T07:20:41.308311-07:00","sha1":"0dfc0bec9f10945ff5d754109bd93d432721a878","page_count":4,"file_size":1193337,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230.38.0_3.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230.38.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 5:24-cr-00138-TPB-PRL Document151 Filed 06/22/26 Page1of4 PagelD:1264\nUSCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document:38 Date Filed: 06/23/2026 Page: 1 of. 4%\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\nRML 6/22/2026 - MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA\n\n(See bottom of Page 2 for\n\nTranscript Information Form\n\nedited by Official Court Reporter\n\nRebekah Lockwood on United States v. Robert Rivernider\n\n4/24/2026 & 6/22/2026.)\nCase No. 5:24-cr-00138-TPB-PRL-1\n\nCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM (AO 435 \u2014 CONTENT)\nAppellant: Robert Rivernider (Pro Se)\n\nPurpose: Transcript for appeal in Eleventh Circuit Case No. 25-14369-J\n\nProceedings Requested (UNREDACTED transcripts requested):\nall dates in 2025):\n\n1. June 25, 2025 \u2014 Initial Appearance / First Appearance.\n\n2. July 9, 2025 \u2014 Revocation / Status Hearing.\n\n3. August 26, 2025 \u2014 Revocation Hearing.\n\n4. October 24, 2025 \u2014 Revocation Hearing.\n\n5. December 12, 2025 \u2014 Final Revocation / Sentencing Hearing.\n\nRemarks:\n\nAppellant is incarcerated and proceeding pro se. This corrected request is intended to\ninclude all proceedings listed above as reflected on the district court docket. If any listed\ndate requires correction to match the docket entry, Appellant requests preparation of the\n\ntranscript for the corresponding docketed proceeding.\n\nTranscript Type: Ordinary transcript for appeal purposes.\n\npees\nry\n\n1 hs \u201c\nwr\n\fCase 5:24-cr-00138-TPB-PRL Document151_ Filed 06/22/26 Page 2 of 4 PagelD 1265\nUSCA11 Case: 25-14869 Document:38 Date Filed: 06/23/2026 Page: 2 of 4\n\nPayment: [ x ] CJA/Government expense (if authorized) [ ] Appellant will arrange\npayment\n\nRespectfully submitted,\nDate: March 13, 2026\n\nRobert Henry Rivernider, Jr\n\nRobert Henry Rwwernider, Jr\n\nELECTRONIC SIGNATURE: /S/ Robert Henry Rivernider, Jr\nPro Se Petitioner\n\nWith Permission\n\nReg. No. 96006-004\nFDC Miami\n\nFederal Detention Center\nPO Box 019120\n\nMiami, FL 33101\n\n(OFFICIAL REPORTER\u2019S NOTE: The following text is included as a supplemental record to address\ndeficiencies in the Defendant\u2019s Transcript Information Form filed on 3/19/2026, Docket Entry 135. Official\nCourt Reporter was not timely noticed of Transcript Information Form.)\n\nPART II. Court Reporter Acknowledgment\n\nWithin 14 days of receipt, the Court Reporter must complete this section, file this form with the District Court\nClerk, and send a copy to the Court of Appeals Clerk and all parties. The transcript must be filed within 30 days\nof the date satisfactory arrangements for paying the cost of the transcript were made unless the Court Reporter\nobtains an extension of time to file the transcript.\n\nDate Transcript Order received: 04/22/2026\n\u201ci Satisfactory arrangements for paying the cost of the transcript were made on: 04/22/2026 CJA eVoucher\n\nDC Satisfactory arrangements for paying the cost of the transcript have not been made.\nNo. of hearing days: 5\nEstimated no. of transcript pages: 275\n\nEstimated filing date: 05/22/202\nDate: 04/24/2026 Signature: ooles Phone No.: r.lockwooduscr@gmail.com, 813-301-5380\n\nPART III. Notification That Transcript Has Been Filed In District Court\nOn the date the transcript is filed in the district court, the Court Reporter must complete this section, file this\nform with the District Court Clerk, and send a copy to the Court of Appeals Clerk.\n\n4 I certify that the rare t has endl and filed with the district court on (date); 06/22/2026\n\nDate: 06/22/2026 Signature: RML 6/22/2026 -\nate S 8 ature Paper transcripts mailed to Robert Rivernider at last known address listed on BOP website as\n\nof 6/22/2026 (see attached USPS confirmation with tracking):\nFCI Beckley, Federal Correctional Institution\n\nP.O. Box 350, General & Legal Mail\n\nBeaver, WV 25813\n\fCase 5:24-cr-00138-TPB-PRL Document151 _ Filed 06/22/26 Page 3 of 4 PagelD 1266\nUSCA11 Case: 25-143 ; Jed: 06/23/2026 Page: 3 of 4\n\nBed POSTAL SERVICE.\n\nSULPHUR SPRINGS\n6706 N NEBRASKA AVE\nTAMPA, FL 33604-9998\nwww. USps.Com \u00b0\n06/22/2026 09:33 AM\n\nTRACKING NUMBERS\n9534 6160 4866 6173 2524 00\n\nTRACK STATUS OF ITEMS WITH THIS CODE\n{UP TO 25 ITEMS)\n\nTRACK STATUS BY TEXT MESSAGE\nSend tracking number to 28777 (2USPS)\nStandard message and data rates may apply\n\nTRACK STATUS ONLINE\nVisit https: //www.usps.com/tracking\nText and e-mail alerts available\n\nPURCHASE DETAILS\n\nProduct Qty Unit Price\nPrice\n\nUSPS Grnd Advtg 1 $14.10\nBeaver, WV 25813\nWeight: 1 lb 8.10 oz\nEstimated Delivery Date\nThu 06/25/2026\n\nTracking #:\n9534 6160 4866 6173 2524 00\nInsurance $0.00\nUp to $100.00 included\nTotal $14.10\nGrand Total: $14.10\nCredit Card Remit $14.10\n\nCard Name: VISA\n\nAccount #: XXXXX)XXX)) Qi\nApproval #: 93326F\n\nTransaction #: 680\n\nAID: AO0000000980840 Contactless\nAL: US DEBIT\n\nTO REPORT AN ISSUE\nVisit https: //emai lus.usps.com\n\nAll hazardous labels/markings on reused\nboxes MUST be completely\nremoved/obliterated if they no longer\nmatch the contents.\n\nTO FILE AN INSURANCE CLAIM\nVisit https://www.usps.com/help/claims.htm\n\nPREVIEW YOUR MAIL AND PACKAGES\nSign up for FREE at\nhttps: //informeddel i very .usps.com\n\nLooking for a new opportunity? Join a team\nthat delivers! The Postal Service is\nactively hiring for full and part-time\npositions. To learn more visit us at\n\nbBeiiet 112Re RAm /RaArAAanr~a\n\fee\n\nUS POSTAGE PAID \u2014\n\nUSPS GROUND ADVANTAGE\u00ae\n\nb B10 Os\n\nRDC 07 Robert Rivernider, #96006-004\n\nFC| Becklay\nFaderal Correctional institution\nBo099/ P.O. Box 350\nal General & Legal Mail\nPO BOX 350 Beaver, WV 25813\n\nBEAVER WV 25873-0350\n\nUSPS TRACKINGS #\n\nLe | I |\nI | | | |\n| Ml MMT || . |\n\n9534 8160 4866 8173 2524 00\n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-07-18T10:45:15.163316-07:00","document_number":"38","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"011014466035","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-18T10:44:37.081879-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-18T10:44:37.093155-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-23","time_filed":null,"entry_number":38,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":10766453,"description":"TRANSCRIPTS FILED. Transcript Order: Court Reporter: Rebekah Lockwood, Filer: Robert Rivernider, Dt. all Trans. Filed: 06/22/2026, Proceeding Type and Date: Other Hearings 08/26/2025, Other Hearings 10/24/2025, Other Hearings 12/12/2025, Other Hearings 06/25/2025, Other Hearings 07/09/2025. [Entered: 06/23/2026 11:38 AM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/471348621/","id":471348621,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73638409/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486750873/","id":486750873,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73638409/37/united-states-v-robert-rivernider/","date_created":"2026-07-18T10:44:37.051367-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T07:43:54.950648-07:00","sha1":"262ec60b186934c75781c9046cb357b65e684f79","page_count":13,"file_size":154172,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230.37.0_1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230.37.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 37 Date Filed: 06/04/2026 Page: 1 of 13\n\n No. 25-14369-J\n\n In the\n United States Court of Appeals\n for the Eleventh Circuit\n\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n v.\n\n ROBERT H. RIVERNIDER,\n Defendant-Appellant\n\n\n ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA\n NO. 5:24-CR-138-TPB-PRL-1\n\n\n UNITED STATES\u2019 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO\n APPELLANT\u2019S \u201cRENEWED EMERGENCY MOTION\u201d\n\n\n GREGORY W. KEHOE\n United States Attorney\n\n EMILY C. L. CHANG\n Assistant United States Attorney\n Appellate Division\n\n SEAN SIEKKINEN\n Assistant United States Attorney\n Appellate Division\n USA No. 192\n 400 N. Tampa St., Ste. 3200\n Tampa, FL 33602\nJune 4, 2026 (813) 274-6000\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 37 Date Filed: 06/04/2026 Page: 2 of 13\n\n\n\n In the United States Court of Appeals\n for the Eleventh Circuit\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n\nv. No. 25-14369-J\n\nROBERT H. RIVERNIDER,\n Defendant-Appellant\n\n\n United States\u2019 Response in Opposition to Appellant\u2019s\n \u201cRenewed Emergency Motion\u201d\n\n For the following reasons, the United States opposes pro se appellant\n\nRobert H. Rivernider\u2019s \u201cRenewed Emergency Motion\u201d seeking release\n\npending appeal and other relief (App. Doc. 35).\n\n Course of Proceedings\n\n In 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut\n\nsentenced Rivernider to 144 months\u2019 imprisonment on 18 counts of wire fraud.\n\nSee Doc. 47 at 14\u201315 (original judgment, included in superseding revocation\n\npacket). In May 2020, after Rivernider had served about seven years of his\n\nterm of imprisonment, the district court granted him early release due to the\n\nCOVID-19 pandemic, and he began serving a five-year term of supervised\n\nrelease. Id. at 12. In March 2024, Rivernider \u201cestablished himself in Florida\u201d\n\nand the district court transferred jurisdiction to the Middle District of Florida.\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 37 Date Filed: 06/04/2026 Page: 3 of 13\n\n\nSee Doc. 1.\n\n In January 2025, the United States Probation Office charged Rivernider\n\nwith having violated the terms of his supervised release by failing to report to\n\nhis probation officer, failing to make restitution payments, and failing to\n\nprovide information requested by his probation officer. See Doc. 6 at 2 (initial\n\nrevocation packet). Those violations allegedly occurred between May and\n\nNovember 2024. Id. In August 2025, the probation office filed a superseding\n\npetition alleging that Rivernider had committed a fourth violation, in\n\nDecember 2024, by obtaining an auto loan without his probation officer\u2019s\n\npermission. See Doc. 47 at 2.\n\n The district court found Rivernider guilty of three violations (failing to\n\nreport, failing to disclose required information, and obtaining a loan without\n\napproval), revoked his supervised release, and sentenced him to three years\u2019\n\nimprisonment. See Doc. 115 (revocation judgment).\n\n Meanwhile, a jury in Florida convicted Rivernider of having committed\n\nfelony voter fraud (while on federal supervised release). See State v. Rivernider,\n\n__ So.3d__, 2026 WL 1261649, at *1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. May 8, 2026); Doc.\n\n47 at 5. A Florida appellate court recently found that his state sentence was\n\nillegally short, vacated it, and remanded for resentencing. Id. at *2. Rivernider\n\nfaces up to 15 years in prison for that conviction, id. at *1, separate and aside\n\n\n 2\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 37 Date Filed: 06/04/2026 Page: 4 of 13\n\n\nfrom his federal supervised-release-revocation sentence.\n\n Back in federal court, Rivernider filed a pro se notice of appeal (Doc. 119)\n\nand a pro se motion to allow him to \u201cprepare [his own] appellate filings,\u201d either\n\nby granting him release pending appeal or by giving him \u201caccess to [his\n\nnecessary] legal materials\u201d (Doc. 123). The district court denied Rivernider\u2019s\n\nrequest for release pending appeal (Doc. 127) but directed the clerk to send\n\nRivernider copies of certain documents and to provide other documents if\n\nrequested (Doc. 128), thus providing the relief that he sought. Rivernider later\n\nrequested copies of various transcripts and of a letter that had been referenced\n\nat sentencing. See Docs. 136, 138. The court granted both requests. See Docs.\n\n137, 143.\n\n Rivernider now asks this Court to grant him release pending appeal, but\n\nfor different reasons. See App. Doc. 35. Now he says he should be released\n\nbecause his appeal raises \u201csubstantial questions\u201d about the district court\u2019s\n\njurisdiction and about the reliability of evidence and witnesses at sentencing.\n\nId. at 3\u20134. Specifically, he claims that \u201cthe transfer of supervised release\n\njurisdiction from the District of Connecticut to the Middle District of Florida\n\nwas invalid because the District of Connecticut was not informed of pending\n\nalleged supervised release violations at the time transfer was requested and\n\naccepted.\u201d Id. at 3. He cites no authority requiring such notice, however. Id.\n\n\n 3\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 37 Date Filed: 06/04/2026 Page: 5 of 13\n\n\nHe also claims that his \u201csupervised release had already expired prior to\n\ninitiation of the revocation proceedings once First Step Act credits are properly\n\napplied to the aggregate sentence.\u201d Id. But he cites no authority for that\n\nproposition, either. Id. And he seeks various other relief related to his requests\n\nfor transcripts and other materials in the district court. Id. at 5\u20139.\n\n Argument\n\n The Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3143, governs Rivernider\u2019s request for\n\nrelease pending appeal. He cannot meet his heavy burden to demonstrate\n\neligibility for relief under the statute for several reasons, as we will explain.\n\nBefore turning to that, though, we will address his arguments about transcripts\n\nand other materials. See Rivernider\u2019s motion at 5\u20139. The district court granted\n\nRivernider\u2019s request for transcripts at the government\u2019s expense. See Doc. 137\n\nat 1\u20132. The court reporter filed two transcripts on May 21, 2026. See Docs.\n\n146\u201347. The remaining transcripts\u2014including the transcript of Rivernider\u2019s\n\nfinal revocation hearing\u2014are due on or before June 22, 2026 (less than three\n\nweeks from now), see Doc. 145 at 1, as Rivernider acknowledges on page 7 of\n\nhis motion. The court likewise granted his request for a copy of the letter that\n\nhe mentions on page 5 of his motion. See Doc. 124. If it becomes necessary to\n\nseek to enforce those orders, Rivernider\u2019s recourse would lie in the district\n\ncourt, not here. Accordingly, Rivernider demonstrates no right to relief from\n\n 4\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 37 Date Filed: 06/04/2026 Page: 6 of 13\n\n\nthis Court regarding transcripts or other materials (nor any need for such\n\nrelief).\n\n Regardless, Rivernider cannot show that he is eligible for release\n\npending appeal, mainly because he did not present his current arguments to the\n\ndistrict court. The court therefore made no determination about whether or not\n\nRivernider would pose a flight risk or a danger to the community (or both) if\n\nreleased. See 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3143(b). Those threshold factual findings are\n\nprerequisites for release pending appeal. Id.\n\n \u201cA party entitled to do so may obtain review of a district-court order\n\nregarding release after a judgment of conviction by filing a notice of appeal\n\nfrom that order in the district court, or by filing a motion in the court of\n\nappeals if the party has already filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of\n\nconviction.\u201d Fed. R. App. P. 9(b). The Bail Reform Act of 1984 governs\n\nrequests for release pending appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 9(c) (\u201cThe court must\n\nmake its decision regarding release in accordance with the applicable\n\nprovisions of 18 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 3142, 3143, and 3145(c).\u201d).\n\n The Bail Reform Act imposes stringent limits on the availability of bail\n\npending appeal. See 18 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 3143, 3145; Eugene Gressman et al., Supreme\n\nCourt Practice \u00a7 17.15, at 884\u201385 (9th ed. 2007). It requires that a convicted\n\ncriminal who has been sentenced to imprisonment shall be detained pending\n\n\n 5\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 37 Date Filed: 06/04/2026 Page: 7 of 13\n\n\nappeal unless he establishes:\n\n (1) by clear and convincing evidence, that he is unlikely to\n flee if released;\n\n (2) by clear and convincing evidence, that he is unlikely to pose\n a danger to the safety of any other person or to the\n community if released;\n\n (3) that his appeal is not for the purpose of delay;\n\n (4) that his appeal raises a substantial question of law or\n fact; and\n\n (5) that resolution of that question favorably to the\n appellant is likely to result in\n\n (i) reversal of all counts of conviction on which\n imprisonment has been imposed,\n\n (ii) an order for new trial of all counts on which\n imprisonment has been imposed,\n\n (iii) a sentence that does not include a term of\n imprisonment, or\n\n (iv) a reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment\n less than the total of the time already served plus\n the expected duration of the appeal process.\n\n18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3143(b) (emphasis added); see United States v. Giancola, 754 F.2d\n\n898, 900\u201301 (11th Cir. 1985). In placing the burden on the appellant, Congress\n\nconcluded that \u201c[o]nce guilt of a crime has been established in a court of law,\n\nthere is no reason to favor release pending imposition of sentence or appeal,\u201d\n\nand that \u201crelease of a criminal appellant into the community after conviction\n\n\n 6\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 37 Date Filed: 06/04/2026 Page: 8 of 13\n\n\nmay undermine the deterrent effect of the criminal law.\u201d See S. Rep. No. 98\u2013\n\n147 at 53 (1983). The purpose of the Bail Reform Act was to \u201climit [the]\n\navailability\u201d of release pending appeal by \u201cchang[ing] the [old] presumption\u201d\n\nagainst detainment, \u201cso that the conviction is [now] presumed correct and the\n\nburden is on the convicted defendant to overcome that presumption.\u201d Giancola,\n\n754 F.2d at 900\u201301.\n\n Although a defendant may ask an appellate court for release pending\n\nappeal\u2014as Rivernider does\u2014such motions \u201care actually requests for appellate\n\nreview of a district court\u2019s order.\u201d United States v. Meister, 744 F.3d 1236, 1239\n\n(11th Cir. 2013) (addressing request for release under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3145). A\n\n\u201cmotion in the district court\u201d is a \u201cprerequisite\u201d for release pending appeal. In\n\nre Smith, 823 F.2d 401, 401 (11th Cir. 1987); see also Fed. R. App. Proc. 9(b)\n\n(providing for review of district-court orders).\n\n Rivernider filed in the district court a \u201cmotion for release pending\n\nappeal, or in the alternative, for access to legal materials.\u201d Doc. 123. In\n\nresolving that motion, however, the district court did not need to address the\n\ncriteria for release and it made no findings about the prerequisites. See Doc.\n\n123. That\u2019s because Rivernider requested release merely as an alternative form\n\nof relief, to the extent necessary to allow him to \u201cprepare appellate filings\u201d and\n\nto \u201cprevent irreparable harm to his appellate rights,\u201d if he could not otherwise\n\n\n 7\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 37 Date Filed: 06/04/2026 Page: 9 of 13\n\n\nreceive legal materials. Doc. 123 at 3. But federal courts lack authority to grant\n\nrelease pending appeal simply to facilitate a defendant\u2019s pro se litigation; they\n\nmay grant release only in the limited circumstances that Congress allowed. See\n\n\u00a7 1343(b). Here, Rivernider asserted in the district court that he was \u201cnot a\n\nflight risk or a danger to the community\u201d (two prerequisites) but he did not\n\ncontend that this appeal would present a \u201csubstantial question of law or fact\u201d\n\nlikely to result in favorable relief (another prerequisite). Doc. 123 at 3. Thus,\n\ndespite the caption of Rivernider\u2019s motion, the district court had no basis to\n\nfind him eligible for release pending appeal, and therefore no reason to make\n\nfactual findings about any prerequisites. See 18 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1343(b)(4)\u2013(5). The\n\ncourt did not address, for instance, whether Rivernider had shown by \u201cclear\n\nand convincing evidence\u201d that he would be unlikely to flee and unlikely to\n\npose a danger to the community if released. Instead, the court appropriately\n\ngranted the relief that was the basis of Rivernider\u2019s motion: access to the\n\nrequested legal materials. Id.; Docs. 124, 127\u201328. In other words, the district\n\ncourt made no findings about any prerequisites for release pending appeal\n\nbecause Rivernider\u2019s request for release was facially insufficient and, in any\n\nevent, unnecessary for the relief that he sought (access to legal materials so he\n\ncould \u201cprepare appellate filings\u201d).\n\n Rivenrider now asks this Court to grant him release pending appeal on\n\n\n 8\n\fUSCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 37 Date Filed: 06/04/2026 Page: 10 of 13\n\n\ndifferent grounds. He now claims that his appeal presents substantial questions\n\nof law or fact (his motion at 3\u20134), as we mentioned above, but he does not\n\naddress his risk of flight or danger to the public. Whether or not he had\n\naddressed those things here, though, appellate courts review district courts\u2019\n\nfactual findings regarding eligibility for release pending appeal; they do not\n\nmake de novo findings about risk of flight or dangerousness. See Meister, 744\n\nF.3d at 1239. Because Rivernider failed to advance those arguments below,\n\nand the district court thus made no such findings, there is no basis in the record\n\nfor this Court to assess Rivernider\u2019s risk of flight or his dangerousness, and\n\ntherefore no ground for this Court to grant release pending appeal. Cf. Meister,\n\n744 F.3d at 1239 (noting that determinations under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3145(c)\u2014\n\nwhich allows release for \u201cexceptional reasons\u201d\u2014\u201care to be made in large part\n\nby the district court,\u201d subject to appellate review by this Court).\n\n Accordingly, Rivernider has not met his burden to establish a right to\n\nrelief under the Bail Reform Act and Rule 9 of the Federal Rules of Appellate\n\nProcedure. This Court should deny his motion. The United States will respond\n\nto Rivernider\u2019s purported issues of law or fact if he raises them in his brief.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\fUSCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 37 Date Filed: 06/04/2026 Page: 11 of 13\n\n\n\n Conclusion\n\n For these reasons, this Court should deny Rivernider\u2019s motion.\n\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n GREGORY W. KEHOE\n United States Attorney\n\n EMILY C. L. CHANG\n Assistant United States Attorney\n Appellate Division\n\n By: s/ Sean Siekkinen\n SEAN SIEKKINEN\n Assistant United States Attorney\n Appellate Division\n USA No. 192\n 400 N. Tampa St., Ste. 3200\n Tampa, FL 33602\n (813) 274-6000\n sean.siekkinen@usdoj.gov\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\fUSCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 37 Date Filed: 06/04/2026 Page: 12 of 13\n\n\n\n Certificate of Compliance with Type-Volume Limitation\n\n This response, which contains 1996 countable words, complies with Fed.\n\nR. App. P. 27(d)(2)(A) and Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5), (6).\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 37 Date Filed: 06/04/2026 Page: 13 of 13\n\n\n\n Certificate of Service\n\n I certify that on June 4, 2026, I electronically filed the foregoing\n\ndocument with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which\n\nwill send a notice of electronic filing to the following:\n\n ROBERT H. RIVERNIDER\n Reg. No. 96006-004\n FCI Beckley \u2013 Inmate Legal Mail\n P.O. Box 350\n Beaver, WV 25813\n\n Defendant-appellant, pro se\n\n s/ Sean Siekkinen\n SEAN SIEKKINEN\n Assistant United States Attorney\n\n\n\n\np_Rivernider, Robert_US response to pro se mtn 2069-1012-7621 v.4.docx\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-07-18T10:45:04.953908-07:00","document_number":"37","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"011014439613","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-18T10:44:37.019261-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-18T10:44:37.027577-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-04","time_filed":null,"entry_number":37,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":10753163,"description":"RESPONSE to Motion filed by Appellant Robert Rivernider [35] filed by Attorney Sean Siekkinen for Appellee USA. [25-14369] (ECF: Sean Siekkinen) [Entered: 06/04/2026 11:33 AM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/471348620/","id":471348620,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73638409/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486750872/","id":486750872,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73638409/36/united-states-v-robert-rivernider/","date_created":"2026-07-18T10:44:36.962355-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T07:44:13.869022-07:00","sha1":"8eaae54ae9562c5947979083d283414ca2e5aad7","page_count":6,"file_size":104428,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230.36.0_1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230.36.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 36 Date Filed: 05/28/2026 Page: 1 of 6\n\n No. 25-14369-J\n\n In the\n United States Court of Appeals\n for the Eleventh Circuit\n\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n\n v.\n\n ROBERT H. RIVERNIDER,\n Defendant-Appellant\n\n\n ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA\n NO. 5:24-CR-00138-TPB-PRL\n\n\n UNITED STATES\u2019 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME\n TO RESPOND TO APPELLANT\u2019S MOTION\n\n\n GREGORY W. KEHOE\n United States Attorney\n\n SEAN SIEKKINEN\n Assistant United States Attorney\n Appellate Division\n USA No. 192\n 400 N. Tampa St., Ste. 3200\n Tampa, FL 33602\n (813) 274-6000\n\nMay 28, 2026\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 36 Date Filed: 05/28/2026 Page: 2 of 6\n\n\n\n In the United States Court of Appeals\n for the Eleventh Circuit\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n\nv. No. 25-14369-J\n\nROBERT H. RIVERNIDER,\n Defendant-Appellant\n\n\n United States\u2019 Motion for Extension of Time to\n Respond to Appellant\u2019s Motion\n\n Appellee, the United States, respectfully requests an extension of time of\n\nseven days, until June 4, 2026, in which to respond to appellant\u2019s pro se\n\n\u201cRenewed Emergency Motion\u201d seeking release pending appeal and other relief\n\n(App. Doc. 35). Our response is presently due today (May 28). Additional time\n\nis necessary for the following reasons:\n\n 1. I am counsel of record for the United States in this appeal.\n\n 2. Pro se appellant Robert Rivernider signed the motion in question\n\non May 11 and the Court dated it May 18, but the motion was not docketed\u2014\n\nand we did not receive it\u2014until May 26 (two days ago). See App. Doc. 35.\n\n 3. I was unable to turn to this matter until today due to other pending\n\nappeals in this Court.\n\n 4. To obtain release pending appeal, Rivernider would need to show\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 36 Date Filed: 05/28/2026 Page: 3 of 6\n\n\nby clear and convincing evidence that he is unlikely to flee and unlikely to pose\n\na danger to the community, and also demonstrate that his appeal raises \u201ca\n\nsubstantial question of law or fact\u201d likely to result in favorable relief for him.\n\nSee 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3143(b).\n\n 5. The district court has already ruled that Rivernider is not entitled\n\nto release pending appeal. See Doc. 127 (denying previous motion).\n\n 6. Based on my preliminary review of the record, I see no\n\n\u201csubstantial\u201d question of law or fact likely to result in favorable relief for\n\nRivernider under \u00a7 3143(b), and therefore no likelihood that he can meet his\n\nburden to obtain release pending appeal.\n\n 7. However, Rivernider also seeks various other relief apparently\n\nrelated to his previous requests in the district court for transcripts or other\n\nmaterials. See App. Doc. 35 at 5\u20139. I will require additional time to review the\n\nrecord below and respond to these arguments.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 36 Date Filed: 05/28/2026 Page: 4 of 6\n\n\n For these reasons, the United States requests seven more days\u2014until\n\nJune 4, 2026\u2014in which to respond to appellant\u2019s motion.\n\n\n\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n GREGORY W. KEHOE\n United States Attorney\n\n\n By: s/ Sean Siekkinen\n SEAN SIEKKINEN\n Assistant United States Attorney\n Appellate Division\n USA No. 192\n 400 N. Tampa St., Ste. 3200\n Tampa, FL 33602\n (813) 274-6000\n sean.siekkinen@usdoj.gov\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 36 Date Filed: 05/28/2026 Page: 5 of 6\n\n\n\n Certificate of Compliance with Type-Volume Limitation\n\n This motion, which contains 331 countable words, complies with Fed.\n\nR. App. P. 27(d)(2)(A) and Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5), (6).\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 36 Date Filed: 05/28/2026 Page: 6 of 6\n\n\n\n Certificate of Service\n\n I certify that on May 28, 2026, a copy of the foregoing document and\n\nnotice of electronic filing was sent by United States mail to the following non-\n\nCM/ECF participant:\n\n ROBERT RIVERNIDER\n Reg. No. 96006-004- Inmate Mail\n FCI Beckley\n P.O. Box 350\n Beaver, WV 35813\n\n Defendant-Appellant, pro se\n\n\n\n s/ Sean Siekkinen\n SEAN SIEKKINEN\n Assistant United States Attorney\n\n\n\n\np_Rivernider Robert_US meot_motion response 2065-6291-5589 v.1.docx\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-07-18T10:45:12.600126-07:00","document_number":"36","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"011014428958","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-18T10:44:36.925843-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-18T10:44:36.938275-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-28","time_filed":null,"entry_number":36,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":10747919,"description":"MOTION for extension of time to file response to motion to 06/04/2026 filed by USA. Opposition to Motion is Unknown. [36] [25-14369] (ECF: Sean Siekkinen) [Entered: 05/28/2026 03:21 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/471348619/","id":471348619,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73638409/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486750871/","id":486750871,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73638409/35/united-states-v-robert-rivernider/","date_created":"2026-07-18T10:44:36.887671-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T07:44:15.707675-07:00","sha1":"ba4807cea6639a074f34926ff7d593f0b88cd324","page_count":11,"file_size":701942,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230.35.0_1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230.35.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" fTfOtrSPPE^^\n USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 35 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 1 of 11\n peceweo \"-S\n CUEF#^\n\n\nMM \\ 8 10TB IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n\n\n FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT\n ATLANI^*^\n\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\n PlaintifT-Appellee,\n\n\n V.\n\n\n\n\n ROBERT H. RIVERNIDER,\n\n Defendant-Appellant,Pro Se.\n\n\n Case No. 25-14369\n :5\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n\n for the Middle District of Florida\n\n\n D.C. Docket No.5:24-cr-00138-TPB-PRL-l\n\n\n\n RENEWED EMERGENCY MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE PENDING\n\n\n APPEAL,TO EXPEDITE TRANSMISSION OF TRANSCRIPTS,AND FOR RELATED\n\n RELIEF\n\n\n\n Appellant Robert H. Rivemider, proceeding pro se, respectfully renews his Emergency Motion\n\n for Immediate Release Pending Appeal and requests expedited transmission of all completed\n\n transcripts and record materials necessary for meaningful appellate review.\n\n\n This motion is renewed pursuant to the Court's Order entered April 23,2026 reinstating this\n\n appeal.\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 35 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 2 of 11\n\n\nI. INTRODUCTION\n\n\n\nThis appeal concerns the legality of the district court's exercise ofjurisdiction over Appellant's\n\nsupervised release proceedings,the validity of the warrant issued in this matter, the reliability of\n\nthe evidence relied upon by the district court, and the sentence ultimately imposed.\n\n\nAppellant has now served approximately ten and one-half(10.5) months in custody since his\n\narrest on June 24,2025. During the revocation proceedings, the sentencing guideline range\n\ndiscussed by the parties and the district court was three (3)to nine(9) months. Appellant has\n\ntherefore already served more time than the upper end ofthe guideline range.\n\n\nThe sentence in this matter was imposed on December 12, 2025. Nearly six months later.\n\nAppellant still has not received the transcripts necessary to prosecute this appeal.\n\n\nAccording to communications from the court reporter and clerk's office, the transcripts have\n\nalready been completed and are available for transmission once payment issues are processed.\n\nFunding for the transcripts has now been approved through the Criminal Justice Act(\"CJA\").\n\nAppellant is informed that the June 25 proceedings were electronically completed and available.\n\n\nDespite this, transcript deadlines have reportedly been extended until June 22/23, 2026.\n\n\nAt the current pace, the appeal may extend beyond the effective custodial portion of Appellant's\n\nsentence once good-conduct time and First Step Act credits are properly applied. Continued\n\nincarceration under these circumstances constitutes irreparable harm and risks rendering the\n\nappeal meaningless.\n\n\nII. GROUNDS FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 35 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 3 of 11\n\n\nA. The Appeal Raises Substantial Questions Regarding Jurisdiction\n\n\nThis appeal raises substantial questions regarding whether the Middle District of Florida ever\n\nlawfully obtained jurisdiction over Appellant's supervised release.\n\n\nAppellant contends that the transfer of supervised release jurisdiction from the District of\n\nConnecticut to the Middle District of Florida was invalid because the District of Connecticut was\n\nnot informed of pending alleged supervised release violations at the time transfer was requested\n\nand accepted.\n\n\nThe missing docket entries in the district court proceedings, specifically docket entries 2 through\n\n7, may contain communications or representations relating to the transfer and warrant\n\nproceedings.\n\n\nIn addition, Appellant contends that supervised release had already expired prior to initiation of\n\nthe revocation proceedings once First Step Act credits are properly applied to the aggregate\n\nsentence.\n\n\n\n\nAppellant's supervised release began on May 14,2020. Appellant contends that earned First Step\n\nAet credits from the original sentence reduced the effective expiration date ofsupervised release\n\nto approximately September 2024, prior to the challenged transfer proceedings and alleged\n\nviolations.\n\n\n\nThe appeal therefore presents substantial jurisdictional questions directly affecting the legality of\n\nthe revocation proceedings.\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 35 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 4 of 11\n\n\nB. The Appeal Raises Substantial Questions Regarding Reliability of Evidence and Witness\n\nCredibility\n\n\nThe revocation proceedings depended substantially upon testimony and representations made by\n\nProbation Officer Padilla.\n\n\n\nAppellant previously filed motions establishing that Probation Officer Padilla made materially\n\ninconsistent statements regarding a purported letter allegedly left for Appellant.\n\n\nSpecifically, the probation officer claimed that the letter central to the alleged supervised release\n\nviolations had been attached to an email communication. Appellant subsequently demonstrated\n\nthat the referenced email did not contain the alleged attachment.\n\n\nThe transcripts are therefore critical because they will establish the exact testimony provided by\n\nthe probation officer and whether materially false statements were presented to the district court.\n\n\nAppellant further contends that statements relied upon during sentencing were materially false or\n\nmisleading, including:\n\n\n 1. statements regarding the underlying Connecticut case;\n\n 2. assertions that Appellant \"stole $21 million\"; and\n\n 3. the Government's assertion in district court docket entry 78, page 5,that Appellant\n\n \"simultaneously purchased two vehicles.\"\n\n\nAppellant disputes these assertions and contends they materially affected the sentence imposed.\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 35 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 5 of 11\n\n\nAppellant further contends that losses associated with the underlying Connecticut case were\n\nsubstantially impacted by the collapse of the real estate market during the 2008 financial crisis,\n\nrather than theft offunds as characterized during sentencing.\n\n\nC. The Gladson Letter and Other Undisclosed Materials\n\n\n\nDuring the revocation and sentencing proceedings,the district court referenced correspondence\n\nfrom Florida State Attorney William Gladson.\n\n\nThat letter has never been produced to Appellant despite apparent reliance upon it during\n\nsentencing.\n\n\nBecause the sentence imposed was thirty-six (36) months despite a guideline range of three(3) to\n\nnine(9) months, the contents ofthis correspondence are material to the appeal.\n\n\nD. Delay in Production of Transcripts and Record Materials\n\n\nAccording to communications received from the court reporter and clerk's office, the transcripts\n\nnecessary for this appeal have already been completed.\n\n\nAppellant has been informed that the transcripts are available and would be transmitted upon\n\npayment.\n\n\n\nFunding through the Criminal Justice Act has now been approved. Nevertheless, transmission of\n\nthe transcripts continues to be delayed.\n\n\nAppellant has also been informed that transcript deadlines have been extended until June 22/23,\n\n2026.\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 35 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 6 of 11\n\n\nThe continued delay is causing substantial prejudice while Appellant remains incarcerated.\n\n\nIf transcripts are already available, the Court should order immediate transmission of all\n\ncompleted transcripts without further delay so that this appeal may proceed.\n\n\nAppellant is concerned that prolonged delays in production oftranscripts central to the\n\njurisdictional and sentencing issues raised on appeal may impair Appellant's ability to obtain\n\ntimely and meaningful appellate review.\n\n\nE. Documentary Evidence Establishes the Transcripts Were Already Available\n\n\nAppellant has now obtained documentary evidence demonstrating tliat the transcripts in this\n\nappeal were substantially completed and available well before the most recent extension request\n\nfiled in this Court.\n\n\n\nSpecifically, on April 3, 2026, the official court reporter advised Appellant's family member in\n\nwriting that the transcripts from the July 9, 2025, October 24,2025, and December 12, 2025\n\nproceedings were available upon payment.\n\n\nThe court reporter further represented that the proceedings totaled approximately 175 pages and\n\nstated:\n\n\n\n\"As soon as I receive payment,I will begin transcribing the proceedings and will complete the\n\ntranscript(s) in 30 days or less.\"\n\n\nAppellant was subsequently informed that Criminal Justice Act funding for the transcripts had\n\nbeen approved.\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 35 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 7 of 11\n\n\nDespite this, an Application for Extension of Time to File Transcript was later filed in this appeal\n\nextending transcript deadlines until June 22/23, 2026.\n\n\nAs a result, nearly six months after sentencing, Appellant still does not possess the transcripts\n\nnecessary to prosecute this appeal while remaining incarcerated.\n\n\nTo the extent transcripts or portions thereof have already been completed. Appellant respectfully\n\nrequests that the Court order immediate transmission of all completed transcripts without\n\nawaiting additional extension deadlines.\n\n\nAppellant further requests preservation and transmission ofthe complete and unaltered record in\n\nthis matter. The prolonged delay in producing transcripts central to the jurisdictional and\n\nsentencing issues raised on appeal creates substantial concern regarding Appellant's ability to\n\nobtain timely and meaningful appellate review before the sentence is effectively served.\n\n\nF. Request for Preservation and Production of Unredacted Transcripts\n\n\nPrior to sentencing on December 12, 2025, while housed at Marion County Jail, Appellant\n\nreceived correspondence &om the Clerk's Office indicating that parties could request redactions\n\nrelating to transcripts in this matter.\n\n\nBecause the transcripts in this appeal directly concern the jurisdictional issues, witness\n\ntestimony, sentencing proceedings, and statements relied upon by the district court. Appellant\n\nrespectfully requests preservation and production of the complete and unredacted transcripts and\n\nappellate record.\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 35 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 8 of 11\n\n\nAppellant further requests that, to the extent any party, agency, or individual requested or\n\nproposed redactions relating to transcripts or record materials in this case. Appellant be notified\n\nregarding the nature and scope of such requested redactions.\n\n\nThe transcripts are central to Appellant's claims regarding jurisdiction, the validity of the warrant\n\nproceedings,the testimony ofProbation Officer Padilla, and the factual basis relied upon during\n\nsentencing.\n\n\nAccordingly, preservation and production ofa complete and unaltered appellate record is\n\nnecessary to ensure meaningful appellate review.\n\n\nG.Irreparable Harm and Need for Immediate Release\n\n\nAppellant has now served approximately ten and one-half months in custody for alleged\n\ntechnical violations.\n\n\n\nThe sentencing guideline range referenced during the proceedings was three(3)to nine(9)\n\nmonths.\n\n\n\nThe continued delay in producing transcripts and completing the record threatens to moot\n\nmeaningful appellate review because Appellant may complete the effective custodial portion of\n\nthe sentence before the appeal can be adjudicated.\n\n\nOnce good-conduct time and First Step Act credits are properly applied. Appellant contends the\n\nremaining custodial exposure is substantially reduced.\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 35 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 9 of 11\n\n\nAppellant also has severely limited access to legal materials and transcript review while\n\nincarcerated, substantially impairing his ability to prosecute the appeal.\n\n\nUnder these circumstances, continued incarceration pending appeal is unjust and unnecessary.\n\n\nIII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF\n\n\nWHEREFORE,Appellant respectfully requests that this Court:\n\n\n 1. Grant immediate release pending appeal;\n\n 2. Order immediate transmission of all completed transcripts currently available;\n\n 3. Order the district court to immediately authorize and transmit any remaining approved\n\n CJA payments necessary for release of transcripts;\n\n 4. Order production ofthe complete appellate record, including docket entries 2 through 7\n\n and all materials relied upon by the district court;\n\n 5. Order production of any correspondence or submissions from Florida State Attorney\n\n William Gladson;\n\n 6. Order certification regarding whether any ex parte communications or proceedings\n\n occurred relating to issuance of the arrest warrant;\n\n 7. Expedite consideration of this appeal and all related motions;\n\n 8. Order immediate transmission of any completed transcripts currently in existence and\n\n preservation ofthe complete and unaltered appellate record;\n\n 9. Order preservation and production of complete unredacted transcripts and require\n\n disclosure ofany requested or proposed transcript redactions relating to this appeal; and\n\n 10. Grant such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 35 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 10 of 11\n\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nRobert H. Rivemider\n\n\n\n\nELECTRONIC SIGNATURE:/S/ Robert Henry Rivemider, Jr\n\nWith Permission\n\n\n\nAppellant,Pro Se\n\n\nReg. No. 96006-004\nFCI Beckley Satellite Camp\nP.O. Box 350\nBeaver, West Virginia 25813\n\nDate: May 11, 2026\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n\nI hereby certify that a tme and correct copy of the foregoing Renewed Emergency Motion for\nImmediate Release Pending Appeal, to Expedite Transmission of Transcripts, and for Related\nRelief was placed in the US Mail on this llth day of May,2026, addressed to:\n\nOffice ofthe United States Attomey\nMiddle District of Florida\n\n\nRobert H. Rivemider\nAppellant, Pro Se\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 35 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 11 of 11\n/4- 3. \"B^lndh^k ^ OmJkNDO FL 328\n\nIpIidnoood 13 MAY 2026 PM 2 L\n AMERICA\n\n f^onf vr\n\n\n\n\n ^-5. Cinir+ if\n hcnjC cFf / U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE\n O a r6^ /\" ^ 11\u00ab1 Circuit Court of AppBal8(C0A)\n 61^\n UkP<^\n\n 30303-S29S9S\n\n -i-\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-07-18T10:45:12.175428-07:00","document_number":"35","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"011014423405","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-18T10:44:36.847257-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-18T10:44:36.859578-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-18","time_filed":null,"entry_number":35,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-18.001","pacer_sequence_number":10745156,"description":"MOTION Renewed emergency motion for immediate release pending appeal, to expedite transmission of transcripts, and for related relief filed by Appellant Robert Rivernider. Opposition to Motion is Unknown [35] [Entered: 05/26/2026 03:11 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/471348618/","id":471348618,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73638409/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486750870/","id":486750870,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73638409/34/united-states-v-robert-rivernider/","date_created":"2026-07-18T10:44:36.800678-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T07:44:19.458346-07:00","sha1":"31883ff5968857d28cea3fc5c82d8f661424d737","page_count":11,"file_size":305813,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230.34.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230.34.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 34 Date Filed: 05/11/2026 Page: 1 of 11\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\no CLERK MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA\n\n MAY 1 1 2026 ) OCALA DIVISION\n -^^SANTA. Gii>\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\n\n V.\n\n\n\n ROBERT RIVERNIDER,\n\n Defendant-Appellant, Pro Se\n\n\n Case No.: 5:24-cr-00138-TPB-PRL-l\n\n\n\n\n MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE\n\n\n\n(28 U.S.C. \u00a7 753(f))\n\n\n\n\n L INTRODUCTION\n\n\n\n Defendant-Appellant, Robert Rivemider, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, respectfully\n\n moves this Court for an order authorizing the preparation and provision oftranscripts at\n\n government expense pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 753(f).\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 34 Date Filed: 05/11/2026 Page: 2 of 11\n\n\nThe requested transcripts are necessary for the proper presentation and adjudication of\n\nsubstantial, non-frivolous issues on appeal. Without these transcripts, meaningful appellate\n\nreview is impossible, and Appellant will suffer continued prejudice while incarcerated.\n\n\n\n\nII. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND\n\n\n\nAppellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment entered in this case. Appellant has\n\nbeen granted in forma pauperis status.\n\n\nAppellant has submitted a Transcript Order Form identifying the relevant proceedings. Due to\n\ninadvertent omission, Appellant has filed an Amended Transcript Order Form to include all\n\nnecessary hearings.\n\n\nThe Court Reporter has indicated that the transcripts have been prepared and are ready for\n\nrelease, but payment has not been authorized. As a result, the appeal has been delayed through\n\nno fault of Appellant.\n\n\n\n\nin.LEGAL STANDARD\n\n\n\nUnder 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 753(f), transcripts shall be provided at government expense to a party\n\nproceeding in forma pauperis ifthe Court certifies that:\n\n\n 1. The appeal is not frivolous; and\n\n 2. The transcript is needed to decide the issue presented.\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 34 Date Filed: 05/11/2026 Page: 3 of 11\n\n\nAppellant satisfies both requirements.\n\n\n\n\nIV. THE APPEAL IS NOT FRIVOLOUS\n\n\n\nAppellant raises substantial legal and constitutional issues, including:\n\n\nA. Jurisdictional Defect\n\n\n\nAppellant challenges the validity ofthe transfer of supervised release jurisdiction under 18\n\nU.S.C. \u00a7 3605, asserting that the transfer was procured without disclosure of alleged technical\n\nviolations, rendering the transfer invalid.\n\n\nB. Due Process Violations\n\n\n\nAppellant challenges proceedings conducted without notice and without counsel, including a\n\nJanuary 14, 2025 proceeding at which a warrant was issued.\n\n\nC. Sentencing Errors\n\n\nAppellant challenges the imposition ofa 36-month sentence, which significantly exceeds the\n\napplicable advisory guideline range of approximately 3-9 months.\n\n\nThese issues are substantial and non-fiivolous.\n\n\n\n\nV. THE TRANSCRIPTS ARE NECESSARY\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 34 Date Filed: 05/11/2026 Page: 4 of 11\n\n\nThe requested transcripts are essential to resolve the issues on appeal. Specifically:\n\n\n \u2022 January 14,2025-Proceedings related to the issuance of the warrant, including\n\n potential ex parte proceedings and lack of counsel.\n\n \u2022 June 24,2025-Initial appearance proceedings.\n\n \u2022 July 9,2025-Proceedings addressing Appellant's right to self-representation.\n\n \u2022 August 26,2025-Proceedings involving alleged technical violations.\n\n \u2022 October 24,2025-Proceedings involving factual assertions and references to external\n\n materials relied upon by the Court.\n\n \u2022 December 12,2025-Revocation and sentencing hearing.\n\n\nThese transcripts are necessary to establish the factual record underlying Appellant's\n\njurisdictional, constitutional, and sentencing claims.\n\n\n\n\nVI. DELAY IS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO APPELLANT\n\n\n\nAppellant has diligently pursued the preparation of the record.\n\n\nThe Court Reporter has indicated that the transcripts are complete and ready for release, but\n\npayment authorization has not been issued. This delay is administrative in nature and not\n\nattributable to Appellant.\n\n\nAppellant remains incarcerated while the appeal is effectively stalled due to the absence of\n\ntranscripts necessary for review.\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 34 Date Filed: 05/11/2026 Page: 5 of 11\n\n\n\n\nvn. CONCLUSION\n\n\n\nAppellant has demonstrated that:\n\n\n \u2022 He is proceeding in forma pauperis;\n\n \u2022 The appeal is not frivolous; and\n\n \u2022 The transcripts are necessary to decide the issues presented.\n\n\nAccordingly, Appellant respectfully requests that this Court certify the appeal as non-frivolous\n\nand order that the requested transcripts be provided at government expense pursuant to 28 U.S.C.\n\n\u00a7 753(f).\n\n\n\n\nVin.PRAYER FOR RELIEF\n\n\n\nWHEREFORE,Appellant respectfully requests that this Court:\n\n\n 1. Certify that the appeal is not frivolous;\n\n 2. Find that the requested transcripts are necessary for appellate review;\n\n 3. Order the preparation and provision of all requested transcripts at government expense;\n\n and\n\n\n 4. Grant such other relief as the Court deemsjust and proper.\n\n\n\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 34 Date Filed: 05/11/2026 Page: 6 of 11\n\n\nRobert H. Rivemider\n\n\n\n\nELECTRONIC SIGNATURE:/S/ Robert Henry Rivemider, Jr\n\n\nPro Se Petitioner, With Permission\n\nReg. No. 96006-004\nFCI Beckley Satellite Camp\nP.O. Box 350\nBeaver, West Virginia 25813\n\nDate: May 5, 2026\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 34 Date Filed: 05/11/2026 Page: 7 of 11\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\nI hereby certify that on this 5th day of May,2026,1 placed a true and correct copy ofthe\nforegoing Motion in the US Mail, addressed to:\n\nOffice ofthe United States Attorney\nMiddle District of Florida\n\n35 SE Avenue,Suite 300\nOcala, FL 34471\n\n\n\n\nELECTRONIC SIGNATURE:/S/ Robert Heniy Rivemider, Jr\n\nPro Se Petitioner,\"With Permission\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 34 Date Filed: 05/11/2026 Page: 8 of 11\n\n\nAMENDED TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM(AO 435)\n\nCourt; United States District Court, Middle District ofFlorida\nDivision: Ocala Division\n\n\nCase Name: United States v. Robert Rivemider\nDistrict Court Case No.: 5:24-cr-00138-TPB-PRL-l\nCourt of Appeals Case No.: 25-14369-J\n\nAppellant: Robert Rivemider(Pro Se)\n\n\n\nTRANSCRIPT REQUEST\n\n5ALL PROCEEDINGS\n6INCLUDING ANY SEALED OR EX PARTE PROCEEDINGS\n\n\n\nHEARING DATES REQUESTED\n\n 1. January 14,2025\n (All proceedings, including warrant issuance and any ex parte hearings)\n 2. June 24,2025\n (Initial appearance)\n 3. July 9,2025\n (Hearing regarding self-representation)\n 4. August 26,2025\n (Violation proceedings)\n 5. October 24,2025\n (Hearing involving factual findings and referenced materials)\n 6. December 12,2025\n (Revocation and sentencing hearing)\n\n\n\nDELIVERY INFORMATION\n\n\u00ae ELECTRONIC (if available)\n\u00ae FILE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS\n\n\n\nPAYMENT METHOD\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 34 Date Filed: 05/11/2026 Page: 9 of 11\n\n\nS CJA (if approved)\nSOTHER: Requested pursuant to 28 U.S.C.\u00a7 753(f)(In Forma Pauperis \u2014 Government\n Expense Pending Court Approval)\n\n\n\n STATUS OF PAYMENT\n\n Payment is requested at government expense pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 753(:5.\n A Motion for Transcripts at Government Expense has been filed in the District Court.\n\n\n\n ORDERING PARTY\n\n Name: Robert Rivemider\n Status: Pro Se,In Forma Pauperis\n BOP Reg. No.: 96006-004\n\n Mailing Address:\nFCI Beckley Satellite Camp\nP.O. Box 350\n Beaver, WV 25813\n\n\n\n\nSIGNATURE\n\n\n\nELECTRONIC SIGNATURE:/S/ Robert Henry Rivemider, Jr\n\nPro Se Petitioner, With Permission\n\nDate; May 5, 2026\n\n\n\n\nCOURT REPORTER SECTION (leave blank)\n(To be completed by court reporter)\n\f USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 34 Date Filed: 05/11/2026 Page: 10 of 11\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n\n\nI hereby certify that on this 5^ day of May,2026,1 placed a true and correct copy ofthe\n\nforegoing Notice, along with copies ofthe Amended Transcript Order Form and Motion for\n\nTranscripts at Government Expense,in the US Mail addressed to:\n\n\nOffice of the United States Attorney\nMiddle District of Florida\n\n35 SE Avenue,Suite 300\nOcala, FL 34471\n\n\n\n\nELECTRONIC SIGNATURE:/S/ Robert Henry Rlvemider, Jr\n\nPro Se Petitioner, With Permission\n\f \u25a00^\n\n,q S. USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 34 Date Filed: 05/11/2026FU.Page:\n ORLANDO 32S 11 of 11\nioUduXCtl /L-S^7<^\n 7tA(VY2026 W2 L\n pifl^BEP StCUBWY iry^TATES\n PXmerica\n 3 FOREVEB/USA\n\n\n MAY 1120^8 ^\n US Cou^\n 11thU.S.\n circuitMARSHALS\n Court of Appeals\n SERVICE\n ^y/M ^llUrT\n\n\n\n 30303-=2:2\u00abJ^ n/;/////./.\u201e///;/////y,/////,\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-07-18T10:45:08.283679-07:00","document_number":"34","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"011014405833","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-18T10:44:36.760685-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-18T10:44:36.772002-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-11","time_filed":null,"entry_number":34,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-11.002","pacer_sequence_number":10736156,"description":"MOTION for transcripts at government expense filed by Appellant Robert Rivernider. Opposition to Motion is Unknown [34] [Entered: 05/13/2026 02:22 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/471348617/","id":471348617,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73638409/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486750869/","id":486750869,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73638409/33/united-states-v-robert-rivernider/","date_created":"2026-07-18T10:44:36.719004-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-18T10:44:36.739273-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"33","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"011014405751","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-18T10:44:36.668533-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-18T10:44:36.686318-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-11","time_filed":null,"entry_number":33,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-11.001","pacer_sequence_number":10736102,"description":"Notice of receipt: Notice regarding transcript order and status of record as to Appellant Robert Rivernider.. [Entered: 05/13/2026 02:00 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/471348616/","id":471348616,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73638409/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486750868/","id":486750868,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73638409/32/united-states-v-robert-rivernider/","date_created":"2026-07-18T10:44:36.629991-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-18T10:44:36.651116-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"32","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"011014397828","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-18T10:44:36.592238-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-18T10:44:36.603428-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-08","time_filed":null,"entry_number":32,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-08.001","pacer_sequence_number":10732227,"description":"ORDER: Motion for extension to file transcripts filed by Rebekah Lockwood is GRANTED by clerk [31]. Transcript is due on or before 06/22/2026. Transcript Order: Court Reporter: Rebekah Lockwood, Ct. Rptr. Fee Waiver: granted, Discount Invoked: n. [Entered: 05/08/2026 07:54 AM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/471348615/","id":471348615,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73638409/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486750867/","id":486750867,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73638409/31/united-states-v-robert-rivernider/","date_created":"2026-07-18T10:44:36.557245-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T05:55:39.537706-07:00","sha1":"19a0bb3e5aaacbc25d3e1dbbe958dfc50a8bb0ba","page_count":1,"file_size":211765,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230.31.0_1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230/gov.uscourts.ca11.94230.31.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":3,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" USCA11 Case: 25-14369 Document: 31 Date Filed: 05/07/2026 Page: 1 of 1\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT\n Application for Extension of Time to File Transcript\n and for Waiver of Fee Reduction\n (Please type or print. Application must be completed in full.)\nShort case style: USA v. Robert Rivernider\nUSCA No: 25-14369 DC No.: 5:24-CR-138\nDate extension requested to: 06/22/2026\nReasons for extension request: Heavy court calendar, trials, vacation\n\n\nDate transcript order received: 04/22/2026\nDate satisfactory arrangements for paying cost of transcript made: 04/22/2026\nPages in this appeal: 1) Transcribed 0 2) Not transcribed 275\nFor all other transcripts due, list:\n\n Docket No. Date Ordered Date Due No. Pages No. Pages to\n Completed be Completed\n 8:23-CR-293 04/13/2026 5/13/2026 0 330\n 8:24-CR-22 04/28/2026 06/01/2026 0 85\n\n\n\nEstimated percentage of time in court during past 30 days: 80 Next 30 days: 80\nNumber of extensions requested in past 12 months: 5\nIf this extension is granted, do you agree to employ a substitute reporter to assist you in completing this\ntranscript by the new due date? If not, please explain why: YES\n\n\n\nI certify by my signature that I have sent a copy of this request to the district judge who tried this case; to\nthe Chief District Judge of this district; to the district court clerk; and to all counsel (or pro se parties) of\nrecord (11th Cir. R. 11-1).\n\nCourt Reporter Signature: Date: 05/07/2026\n\nCourt Reporter Name (Print): Rebekah Lockwood Phone Number: (813)301-5380\n r.lockwooduscr@gmail.com\n\n\nExtension: GRANTED DENIED Fee Reduction: WAIVED NOT WAIVED\n\nTranscript Due Date: 10% Discount Provision in effect on:\n 20% Discount Provision in effect on:\n\nDavid J. Smith, Clerk of Court\n\nBy: Date:\n Rev. 8/22\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-07-18T10:45:06.577121-07:00","document_number":"31","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"011014396753","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-18T10:44:36.516622-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-18T10:44:36.532341-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-07","time_filed":null,"entry_number":31,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":10731661,"description":"MOTION for extension of time to file a transcript to 06/22/2026 filed by Rebekah Lockwood. [25-14369] (ECF: Rebekah Lockwood) [Entered: 05/07/2026 01:05 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/471348614/","id":471348614,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73638409/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486750866/","id":486750866,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73638409/30/united-states-v-robert-rivernider/","date_created":"2026-07-18T10:44:36.479418-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-18T10:44:36.500841-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"30","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"011014394580","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-18T10:44:36.445142-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-18T10:44:36.457232-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-04","time_filed":null,"entry_number":30,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-04.002","pacer_sequence_number":10730614,"description":"MOTION renewed motion to compel production of the complete record on appeal filed by Appellant Robert Rivernider. Opposition to Motion is Unknown [30] [Entered: 05/06/2026 11:40 AM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/471348613/","id":471348613,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73638409/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486750865/","id":486750865,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73638409/29/united-states-v-robert-rivernider/","date_created":"2026-07-18T10:44:36.411011-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-18T10:44:36.425896-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"29","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"011014394495","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-18T10:44:36.385028-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-18T10:44:36.392756-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-04","time_filed":null,"entry_number":29,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":10730578,"description":"Notice of receipt: Notice Specifying Motions to be Renewed as to Appellant Robert Rivernider.. [Entered: 05/06/2026 11:10 AM]","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=73638409&page_size=40"}