In re: Banks
| MICHAEL EUGENE BANKS |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| 22-6059 |
| April 20, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 20, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| [10907745] Deficient IFP (Not on court form) received from Michael Eugene Banks but not filed. Served on 4/17/22. Manner of Service: US mail. [22-6059] [Entered: 04/20/2022 04:09 PM] |
| [10907724] Case docketed. Petition for writ of mandamus filed. c/s: n Fee or ifp forms and certificate of service due for by 05/20/2022 for Michael Eugene Banks. DATE RECEIVED: 04/20/2022 [22-6059] [Entered: 04/20/2022 03:36 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
| Search for this case: In re: Banks | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: MICHAEL EUGENE BANKS | |
| Represented By: | Michael Eugene Banks |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | |
| Represented By: | Virginia Loreen Hines |
| Represented By: | David McCrary |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
