Efren Patino-PradoIn re: Efren Patino-Prado
| In re: EFREN PATINO-PRADO, also known as Amado Martinez, also known as Efrain Amador |
| 19-20636 |
| September 10, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 10, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| PETITION filed by Petitioner Mr. Efren Patino-Prado for writ of mandamus [9141538-2] Date received in 5th Circuit: 09/10/2019. Fee due on 10/10/2019 for Petitioner Efren Patino-Prado. Sufficient Mtn/Resp/Reply due on 10/10/2019 for Petitioner Efren Patino-Prado. Date of Service: 09/03/2019 Document is insufficient for the following reasons: Needs a Certificate of Service on Trial Court Judge and filing fee [19-20636] (DLM) [Entered: 09/10/2019 04:04 PM] |
| ORIGINAL PROCEEDING CASE docketed. [19-20636] (DLM) [Entered: 09/10/2019 04:01 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: Efren Patino-PradoIn re: Efren Patino-Prado | |
|---|---|
| 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: EFREN PATINO-PRADO, also known as Amado Martinez, also known as Efrain Amador | |
| Represented By: | Efren Patino-Prado |
| 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.
