Deon Bailey v. United States
| Deon Anthony Romell Bailey |
| United States of America |
| 22-2978 |
| September 19, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 19, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| MOTION for Permission to file a Successive Habeas Petition (Rec'd by MAIL), filed by Petitioner Mr. Deon Anthony Romell Bailey w/service 09/20/2022. Response of United States of America due 10/04/2022. [5200049] [22-2978] (CMH) [Entered: 09/20/2022 10:35 AM] |
| ORIGINAL PROCEEDING case docketed. [5200046] [22-2978] (CMH) [Entered: 09/20/2022 10:32 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: Deon Bailey v. United States | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Deon Anthony Romell Bailey | |
| Represented By: | Deon Anthony Romell Bailey |
| 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: United States of America | |
| Represented By: | Daniel C. Tvedt |
| 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.
