Hugo Marquez v. Brandon Kelly
| HUGO F. MARQUEZ |
| BRANDON KELLY |
| 21-35630 |
| August 4, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 8, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 2 Filed (ECF) Appellant Hugo F. Marquez Motion for certificate of appealability. Date of service: 09/08/2021. [12223798] [21-35630] (Halley, James) [Entered: 09/08/2021 11:52 PM] |
| Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket: needs certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 07/07/2021. Record on appeal included: Yes. [12192050] (JMR) [Entered: 08/04/2021 02:29 PM] |
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: Hugo Marquez v. Brandon Kelly | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner / appellant: HUGO F. MARQUEZ | |
| Represented By: | James F. Halley |
| 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 / appellee: BRANDON KELLY | |
| Represented By: | Samuel Abraham Kubernick 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 | [ 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.
