In re: Tony Smith
| In re: TONY BRYAN SMITH |
| 23-295 |
| December 11, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 11, 2023. 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)). Mailed to: Tony Bryan Smith; Jason S. Miyares. [1001487234] [23-295] EB [Entered: 12/11/2023 04:22 PM] |
| Filing 3 MOTION by Tony Bryan Smith for Oral Examination. [1001487228] [23-295] EB [Entered: 12/11/2023 04:20 PM] |
| Filing 2 Motion for authorization to file successive application for post-conviction relief (Local Rule 22(d)) filed by Tony Bryan Smith. Are PSR & SOR available on district court docket? NA. Has sentencing transcript been prepared? NA. [1001487226] [23-295] EB [Entered: 12/11/2023 04:18 PM] |
| Filing 1 2244 case docketed. Originating case number:. Case manager: EBorneisen. [1001487194] [23-295] EB [Entered: 12/11/2023 03:58 PM] |
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: Tony Smith | |
|---|---|
| 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: TONY BRYAN SMITH | |
| Represented By: | Tony Bryan Smith |
| 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.
