USA v. Valdez-Ruiz
| United States of America |
| Francisco Valdez-Ruiz, also known as Saul Adan Valdez-Campos |
| 23-10625 |
| June 15, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 15, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 JURISDICTIONAL REVIEW COMPLETE. Transcript order due on 06/30/2023 for Appellant Francisco Valdez-Ruiz [23-10625] (AS) [Entered: 06/15/2023 10:24 AM] |
| Filing 1 DIRECT CRIMINAL CASE docketed. NOA filed by Appellant Mr. Francisco Valdez-Ruiz [23-10625] (AS) [Entered: 06/15/2023 10:21 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. Valdez-Ruiz | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff / appellee: United States of America | |
| 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 ] |
| Defendant / appellant: Francisco Valdez-Ruiz, also known as Saul Adan Valdez-Campos | |
| Represented By: | Benjamin David Doyle 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.
