USA v. $118,450.00 in United States Currency
| United States and USA |
| $118,450.00 in United States Currency |
| 3:2019cv00529 |
| May 22, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| Mark A Beatty |
| Nancy J Rosenstengel |
| Drug Related Seizure of Property |
| 21 U.S.C. ยง 881 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 1, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 RETURN OF SERVICE EXECUTED by USA on 06/06/2019. (Hanna, Adam) |
| Filing 5 Warrant for Arrest of Articles in REM Issued (rah) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE by USA re #1 Complaint (Direct Notice of Civil Judicial Forfeiture) (Hanna, Adam) |
| Filing 3 Notice of Judge Assignment. Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel and Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty assigned. All future documents must bear case number 19-529-NJR-MAB. If the parties consent to Magistrate Judge assignment, the consent form with instruction is attached for your convenience. Refer to Civil/Removal Case Processing Requirements, found on the ILSD website, for further service information. (Attachments: #1 Consent Brochure)(rah) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by Adam E. Hanna on behalf of USA. (Hanna, Adam) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT for Forfeiture against $118,450.00 in United States Currency, filed by USA. (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Hanna, Adam) |
Access additional case information on PACER
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 Southern 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
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.
