United States of America v. The Priority Mail parcel bearing USPS tracking number 9505 5102 8686 3037 5531 17
| United States of America |
| The Priority Mail parcel bearing USPS tracking number 9505 5102 8686 3037 5531 17 |
| 1:2013mc00073 |
| February 11, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Chicago Office |
| Adams |
| Daniel G. Martin |
| Other |
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: United States of America v. The Priority Mail parcel bearing USPS tracking number 9505 5102 8686 3037 5531 17 | |
|---|---|
| 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: | AUSA |
| Represented By: | Kathryn E Malizia |
| 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 ] |
| Defendant: The Priority Mail parcel bearing USPS tracking number 9505 5102 8686 3037 5531 17 | |
| 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.
