US v. Reginald Waddell
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
REGINALD ARNOLD WADDELL, a/k/a Chippy
Case Number:
13-6700
Filed:
May 2, 2013
Court:
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Nature of Suit:
Prisoner Petition-Vacate Sentence
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Date Filed | Description |
|---|---|
| August 27, 2013 | US v. Reginald Waddell |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Date Filed | # | Document Text |
|---|---|---|
| August 27, 2013 | 404601164 |
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999117080-2]. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00435-LO-1, 1:12-cv-00689-LO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999181310].. [13-6700]
|
| Search for this case: US v. Reginald Waddell | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff - appellee: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | |
| Represented By: | Neil H. MacBride |
| Represented By: | Michael Edward Rich |
| 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 | [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant - appellant: REGINALD ARNOLD WADDELL, a/k/a Chippy | |
| Represented By: | Reginald Arnold Waddell |
| 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 | [ 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.
