USA v. Quezada
| Juan Pablo Quezada |
| United States of America |
| 21-10569 |
| June 4, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 2, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL FILED. Admitted Exhibits on File in District Court? No. Video/Audio Exhibits on File in District Court? No Electronic ROA deadline satisfied. [21-10569] (MRW) [Entered: 08/02/2021 01:37 PM] |
| DOCUMENT RECEIVED - NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the motion requesting extension and for DC to provide copy of record, etc. received from Appellant Mr. Juan Pablo Quezada because an extension was granted until September 15, 2021 to file brief. We will request the district court forward the record once it is certified. [21-10569] (CNF) [Entered: 07/26/2021 11:12 AM] |
| MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. Juan Pablo Quezada to extend time to file brief as appellant [9622303-2]. [21-10569] (CNF) [Entered: 07/20/2021 06:51 AM] |
| CLERK ORDER granting Motion to extend time to file appellant's brief filed by Appellant Mr. Juan Pablo Quezada [ # 9622303-2 ] A/Pet's Brief deadline updated to 09/15/2021 for Appellant Juan Pablo Quezada [21-10569] (CNF) [Entered: 07/20/2021 07:02 AM] |
| APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney(s) Brian W. McKay for party(s) Appellee USA, in case 21-10569, by Attorney Leigha Amy Simonton for Appellee USA in 21-10569 [21-10569] (MVM) [Entered: 07/20/2021 11:48 AM] |
| APPEARANCE FORM for the court's review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [21-10569] (Brian W. McKay ) [Entered: 07/19/2021 10:34 AM] |
| ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL REQUESTED from District Court for 4:21-CV-655, 4:19-CR-365-1. Electronic ROA due on 07/22/2021. [21-10569] (LEF) [Entered: 07/07/2021 04:19 PM] |
| BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED A/Pet's Brief due on 08/16/2021 for Appellant Juan Pablo Quezada. [21-10569] (LEF) [Entered: 07/07/2021 04:06 PM] |
| DISTRICT COURT ORDER of 07/06/2021 granting IFP for Appellant Mr. Juan Pablo Quezada.Fee deadline satisfied [21-10569] (LEF) [Entered: 07/07/2021 04:05 PM] |
| LETTER OF ADVISEMENT. Reason: to provide appellant a copy of the local rules [21-10569] (CNF) [Entered: 06/17/2021 03:50 PM] |
| INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete, Action: Case OK to Process. [9595720-2] Initial AA Check Due satisfied.. Fee due on 06/29/2021 for Appellant Juan Pablo Quezada [21-10569] (LEF) [Entered: 06/14/2021 11:28 AM] |
| PRISONER CASE WITHOUT COUNSEL docketed. NOA filed by Appellant Mr. Juan Pablo Quezada [21-10569] (MVM) [Entered: 06/04/2021 11:35 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: USA v. Quezada | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant / appellant: Juan Pablo Quezada | |
| Represented By: | Juan Pablo Quezada |
| 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 ] |
| Plaintiff / appellee: United States of America | |
| Represented By: | Leigha Amy Simonton |
| Represented By: | Brian W. McKay Esq. |
| 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.
