Denis Sanchez-Rojas v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Gen
| DENIS OMAR SANCHEZ-ROJAS |
| MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL and WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL |
| 19-60054 |
| January 18, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 25, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| CLERK ORDER dismissing appeal pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 42 for failure to pay fee [8991229-2] [19-60054] (RLL) [Entered: 02/25/2019 09:55 AM] |
| IMMIGRATION RECORD FILED. [19-60054] (DOJ Executive Office of Immigration Review ) [Entered: 02/21/2019 07:26 AM] |
| LETTER OF ADVISEMENT. Reason: Advising parties of updated caption in light of new Attorney General. [19-60054] (SEP) [Entered: 02/20/2019 09:49 AM] |
| APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney(s) Timothy George Hayes for party(s) Respondent Matthew G. Whitaker, Acting U. S. Attorney General, in case 19-60054. [19-60054] (SEP) [Entered: 01/22/2019 03:21 PM] |
| INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete, Action: Case OK to Process. [8965715-2] Initial AA Check Due satisfied. [19-60054] (CB) [Entered: 01/22/2019 09:40 AM] |
| APPEARANCE FORM for the court's review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [19-60054] (Timothy George Hayes ) [Entered: 01/22/2019 09:44 AM] |
| IMMIGRATION CASE docketed. Petition for review filed by Petitioner Mr. Denis Omar Sanchez-Rojas. Date received in 5th Circuit: 01/17/2019. Immigration File Number: a208 983 484 Fee due on 02/04/2019 for Petitioner Denis Omar Sanchez-Rojas. Administrative Record due on 02/27/2019 [19-60054] (CB) [Entered: 01/18/2019 09:46 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.
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.
