USA v. Martin Cisneros
| MARTIN CISNEROS, AKA Moose |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| 20-10384 |
| November 16, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 16, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. Reporters Transcript required: No. Sentence imposed: 135 Months. Appellant Martin Cisneros opening brief due 01/12/2021. Appellee United States of America answering brief due 02/11/2021. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11893581] (JPD) [Entered: 11/16/2020 09:18 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. Martin Cisneros | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant / appellant: MARTIN CISNEROS, AKA Moose | |
| Represented By: | Leah Rae Wigren Esquire |
| 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 ] |
| Plaintiff / appellee: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | |
| Represented By: | Rachel Kent |
| 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.
