In Re: Calvin Gaddy
| In re: CALVIN LYNDALE GADDY |
| 19-465 |
| December 9, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 9, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 DOCKETING NOTICE issued Re: [ # 2 ] Motion for authorization to file successive habeas application (Local Rule 22(d)) Originating case number: 8:19-cv-02851-JFA.. [19-465] RHS [Entered: 12/09/2019 10:34 AM] |
| Filing 3 Docket correction requested from Calvin Lyndale Gaddy. Mailed to: Calvin Gaddy. [19-465] RHS [Entered: 12/09/2019 10:30 AM] |
| Filing 2 Motion for authorization to file successive application for post-conviction relief (Local Rule 22(d)) filed by Calvin Lyndale Gaddy. Is PSR available on district court docket? NA. Has sentencing transcript been prepared? NA. [19-465] RHS [Entered: 12/09/2019 10:29 AM] |
| Filing 1 2244 case docketed. Originating case number: 8:19-cv-02851-JFA. Case manager: RSewell. [19-465] RHS [Entered: 12/09/2019 10:23 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: Calvin Gaddy | |
|---|---|
| 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: CALVIN LYNDALE GADDY | |
| Represented By: | Calvin Lyndale Gaddy |
| 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.
