Sanchez v. US Immigration Department
| Ricardo Enriquez Sanchez |
| United States Immigration Department |
| 22-20530 |
| October 7, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit |
| Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainees |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| Sanchez v. US Immigration Department |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 7, 2022. 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. [22-20530] (DDL) [Entered: 11/07/2022 03:10 PM] |
| ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL REQUESTED from District Court for 4:21-CV-2537. Electronic ROA due on 11/16/2022. [22-20530] (DLM) [Entered: 11/01/2022 09:55 AM] |
| BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED A/Pet's Brief due on 12/12/2022 for Appellant Ricardo Enriquez Sanchez.. Fee deadline updated to 12/27/2022 for Appellant Ricardo Enriquez Sanchez [22-20530] (DLM) [Entered: 11/01/2022 09:57 AM] |
| DOCUMENT RECEIVED - NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken on the Motion for Extension of Time to pay filing fee received from Appellant Mr. Ricardo Enriquez Sanchez because it is unnecessary. On 10/27/22, district court denied the motion for IFP which will be addressed in the briefing notice issued. [22-20530] (DLM) [Entered: 11/01/2022 09:54 AM] |
| DISTRICT COURT ORDER of 10/27/2022 denying IFP for Appellant Mr. Ricardo Enriquez Sanchez. [22-20530] (DLM) [Entered: 11/01/2022 09:50 AM] |
| DOCUMENT RECEIVED - NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken on the Transcript Order attempting to order transcripts from proceeding not previously held before the district court received from Appellant Mr. Ricardo Enriquez Sanchez. The only transcripts that can be ordered in an appeal, would be from district court proceedings, not from a state court proceeding. This appeal will not require transcripts for appeal purposes. [22-20530] (DLM) [Entered: 10/25/2022 03:33 PM] |
| INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete. Action: Case OK to Process. [9958402-2] Initial AA Check Due satisfied. Fee or motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis filed in District Court due on 10/26/2022, for Appellant Ricardo Enriquez Sanchez. [22-20530] (DLJ) [Entered: 10/11/2022 11:16 AM] |
| FORWARDING MOTION for IFP received from Appellant Mr. Ricardo Enriquez Sanchez to the District Court for filing.Fee deadline canceled. [22-20530] (DLM) [Entered: 10/13/2022 09:44 AM] |
| PRISONER CASE WITHOUT COUNSEL docketed. NOA filed by Appellant Mr. Ricardo Enriquez Sanchez [22-20530] (CCR) [Entered: 10/07/2022 01:35 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: Sanchez v. US Immigration Department | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner / appellant: Ricardo Enriquez Sanchez | |
| Represented By: | Ricardo Enriquez Sanchez |
| 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 ] |
| Respondent / appellee: United States Immigration Department | |
| 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.
