SEC v. Barton
| Securities and Exchange Commission |
| Timothy Barton |
| 24-10788 |
| August 28, 2024 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit |
| Securities, commodities, Exchange |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
|
|
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on September 26, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 17 BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED A/Pet's Brief Due on 11/05/2024 for Appellant Timothy Barton. [24-10788] (DDL) [Entered: 09/26/2024 02:43 PM] |
| Filing 16 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. [24-10788] (DDL) [Entered: 09/26/2024 02:42 PM] |
| Filing 14 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney(s) Ezekiel Levenson Hill for party(s) Appellee SEC, in case 24-10788 [24-10788] (ELB) [Entered: 09/06/2024 04:31 PM] |
| Filing 13 APPEARANCE FORM for the court's review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [24-10788] (Ezekiel Levenson Hill ) [Entered: 09/06/2024 01:04 PM] |
| Filing 12 Attorney Mr. Michael J. Edney for Appellant Mr. Timothy Barton Attorney Ezekiel L. Hill for Timothy Barton is advised to resubmit an appearance form. Reason: Counsel failed to complete the lower portion of the form. [24-10788] (TST) [Entered: 09/05/2024 03:26 PM] |
| Filing 11 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Michael J. Edney for Appellant Timothy Barton in 24-10788 [24-10788] (TST) [Entered: 09/05/2024 03:13 PM] |
| Filing 10 APPEARANCE FORM for the court's review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [24-10788] (Ezekiel Levenson Hill ) [Entered: 09/05/2024 01:28 PM] |
| Filing 9 TRANSCRIPT ORDER received from Appellant Mr. Timothy Barton advising transcript unnecessary as it is already filed. [24-10788] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED - The original text prior to review appeared as follows: TRANSCRIPT ORDER received from Appellant Mr. Timothy Barton advising transcript unnecessary as it is already filed. Date of Service: 09/05/2024 via email - Attorney for Appellee: Bernstein; Attorney for Appellant: Edney [24-10788] (Michael J. Edney ) [Entered: 09/05/2024 12:37 PM] |
| Filing 8 APPEARANCE FORM received from Mr. Michael J. Edney for Mr. Timothy Barton for the court's review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [24-10788] (Michael J. Edney ) [Entered: 09/05/2024 12:35 PM] |
| Filing 7 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL REQUESTED from District Court for 3:22-CV-2118. Electronic ROA due on 09/16/2024. [24-10788] (JJF) [Entered: 08/30/2024 03:56 PM] |
| Filing 6 INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete. Action: Case OK to Process. [6] Initial AA Check Due satisfied. [24-10788] (JJF) [Entered: 08/30/2024 03:50 PM] |
| Filing 1 US CIVIL CASE docketed. NOA filed by Appellant Mr. Timothy Barton [24-10788] (JJF) [Entered: 08/28/2024 09:27 AM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
| Search for this case: SEC v. Barton | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Securities and Exchange Commission | |
| Represented By: | Ezekiel Levenson Hill |
| Represented By: | Keefe Michael Bernstein |
| 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 | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Timothy Barton | |
| Represented By: | Michael J. Edney |
| 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 | [ 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.