In re: Ardon Cato, II
| In re: ARDON P. CATO, II |
| 19-355 |
| September 5, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 5, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Docket correction requested from Ardon P. Cato, II. Mailed to: Ardon Cato and Alan Wilson. [19-355] RE [Entered: 09/05/2019 08:34 AM] |
| Filing 3 DOCKETING NOTICE issued Re: [ # 2 ] Motion for authorization to file successive habeas application (Local Rule 22(d)) Originating case number:. Mailed to: Ardon Cato and Alan Wilson. [19-355] RE [Entered: 09/05/2019 08:33 AM] |
| Filing 1 2244 case docketed. Originating case number:. Case manager: REdwards. [19-355] RE [Entered: 09/05/2019 08:27 AM] |
| Filing 2 Motion for authorization to file successive application for post-conviction relief (Local Rule 22(d)) filed by Ardon P. Cato, II. Is PSR available on district court docket? N. Has sentencing transcript been prepared? N. [19-355] RE [Entered: 09/05/2019 08:32 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: In re: Ardon Cato, II | |
|---|---|
| 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: ARDON P. CATO, II | |
| Represented By: | Ardon P. Cato II |
| 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.
