US v. Raymond Chestnut
| RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| 13-6197 |
| February 11, 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
404545265
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to seal [999075128-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999040728-2] Originating case number: 4:05-cr-01044-RBH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999155306]. Mailed to: Chestnut. [13-6197]
|
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: US v. Raymond Chestnut | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant - appellant: RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray | |
| Represented By: | Raymond Edward Chestnut |
| 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 ] |
| Plaintiff - appellee: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | |
| Represented By: | Robert Frank Daley |
| Represented By: | Arthur Bradley Parham |
| 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.
