USA v. Darryl Woodford
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| DARRYL DOMINIC WOODFORD |
| 26-1568 |
| June 30, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 1, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 2 MOTION filed by Mr. Mitchell Ribitwer for Mr. Darryl Dominic Woodford for Mitchell Ribitwer to withdraw as counsel for Darryl Woodford. Certificate of Service: 07/01/2026. [26-1568] (MR) [Entered: 07/01/2026 02:22 PM] |
| Filing 1 Criminal Case Docketed. Notice filed by Appellant Mr. Darryl Dominic Woodford. Transcript needed: y. (ASM) [Entered: 06/30/2026 09:41 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: USA v. Darryl Woodford | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | |
| Represented By: | Margaret M. Smith |
| 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: DARRYL DOMINIC WOODFORD | |
| Represented By: | Darryl Dominic Woodford |
| Represented By: | Mitchell Ribitwer |
| 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.
