Daniel Cobble v. USA
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| DANIEL ERIC COBBLE |
| 20-10628 |
| February 19, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 13, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| NOTICE OF CIP FILING DEFICIENCY to Daniel Eric Cobble. You are receiving this notice because you have not completed the Certificate of Interested Persons (CIP). Failure to comply with 11th Cir. Rules 26.1-1 through 26.1-4 may result in dismissal of the case or appeal under 11th Cir. R. 42-1(b), return of deficient documents without action, or other sanctions on counsel, the party, or both. [Entered: 04/13/2020 07:34 AM] |
| Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Attorney Brett Joseph Talley for Appellee USA. On the same day the CIP is served, the party filing it must also complete the court's web-based stock ticker symbol certificate at the link here http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/web-based-cip or on the court's website. See 11th Cir. R. 26.1-2(b). [20-10628] (ECF: Brett Talley) [Entered: 03/19/2020 12:57 PM] |
| NOTICE OF CIP FILING DEFICIENCY to Brett Joseph Talley for USA and U.S. Attorney Service - Middle District of Alabama for USA. You are receiving this notice because you have not completed the Web-Based Stock Ticker Symbol CIP via the court's public web-page and have not filed the CIP via the electronic filing system (CM/ECF). Failure to comply with 11th Cir. Rules 26.1-1 through 26.1-4 may result in dismissal of the case or appeal under 11th Cir. R. 42-1(b), return of deficient documents without action, or other sanctions on counsel, the party, or both. [Entered: 03/19/2020 12:04 PM] |
| NOTICE OF CIP FILING DEFICIENCY to Daniel Eric Cobble. You are receiving this notice because you have not completed the Certificate of Interested Persons (CIP). Failure to comply with 11th Cir. Rules 26.1-1 through 26.1-4 may result in dismissal of the case or appeal under 11th Cir. R. 42-1(b), return of deficient documents without action, or other sanctions on counsel, the party, or both. [Entered: 03/19/2020 12:00 PM] |
| USDC order denying COA and denying IFP as to Appellant Daniel Eric Cobble was filed on 02/28/2020. Docket Entry 39. [Entered: 03/19/2020 11:56 AM] |
| APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by Brett J. Talley for USA [20-10628] (ECF: Brett Talley) [Entered: 02/26/2020 12:33 PM] |
| HABEAS APPEAL DOCKETED. Notice of appeal filed by Appellant Daniel Eric Cobble on 02/13/2020. Fee Status: Fee Not Paid. No hearings to be transcribed. [Entered: 02/26/2020 10:45 AM] |
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: Daniel Cobble v. USA | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent / appellee: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | |
| Represented By: | U.S. Attorney Service - Middle District of Alabama |
| Represented By: | Brett Joseph Talley |
| 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 ] |
| Petitioner / appellant: DANIEL ERIC COBBLE | |
| Represented By: | Daniel Eric Cobble |
| 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.
