In re: Randolph H. Austin
| In re: RANDOLPH HARRIS AUSTIN, a/k/a Randolph Harris, a/k/a Matarbus Raynard Fewell |
| 13-2042 |
| August 21, 2013 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit |
| Other |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
404778347
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999177397-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999177390-2] Originating case number: 3:05-cr-00213-RJC-DCK-1,3:11-cv-00040-RJC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999264984]. Mailed to: Austin. [13-2042]
|
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: Randolph H. Austin | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: In re: RANDOLPH HARRIS AUSTIN, a/k/a Randolph Harris, a/k/a Matarbus Raynard Fewell | |
| Represented By: | Randolph Harris Austin |
| 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 ] |
| Represented By: | Amy Elizabeth Ray |
| Represented By: | Kevin Zolot |
| 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.
