United States of America v. Shakur
| Cecil Ferguson, Edward Lawrence Joseph, Cheeri Dalton, Sekou Odinga, AKA Nathaniel Burns, Susan Rosenberg, Silvia Baraldini, Iliana Robinson, Milse Cobeo, Alan Berkman and William M. Johnson |
| United States of America |
| Mutulu Shakur |
| 22-2017 |
| September 15, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 23, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 ATTORNEY, Alexandra S. Messiter for United States of America, in case 22-2017, [ # 6 ], ADDED.[3387761] [22-2017] [Entered: 09/23/2022 02:23 PM] |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS ADDITIONAL COUNSEL, on behalf of Appellee USA United States of America, FILED. Service date 09/23/2022 by CM/ECF. [3387736] [22-2017] [Entered: 09/23/2022 02:11 PM] |
| Filing 5 PAYMENT OF DOCKETING FEE, on behalf of Appellant Mutulu Shakur, district court receipt # 5923, FILED.[3383729] [22-2017] [Entered: 09/16/2022 01:19 PM] |
| Filing 4 NON-ADMITTED ATTORNEY, Attorney Brad Thomson, Esq. for Appellant Mutulu Shakur, informed to apply for admission forthwith and submit Addendum A to Notice of Appearance, NOTIFIED.[3383632] [22-2017] [Entered: 09/16/2022 12:06 PM] |
| Filing 3 ELECTRONIC INDEX, in lieu of record, FILED.[3383569] [22-2017] [Entered: 09/16/2022 11:22 AM] |
| Filing 2 DISTRICT COURT RULING, dated 08/31/2022, RECEIVED.[3383564] [22-2017] [Entered: 09/16/2022 11:20 AM] |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF CRIMINAL APPEAL, with district court docket, on behalf of Appellant Mutulu Shakur, FILED. [3383557] [22-2017] [Entered: 09/16/2022 11:17 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.
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.
