United States of America v. One Ruger, Model 10/22, .22 caliber rifle et al
| United States of America |
| One Ruger, Model 10/22, .22 caliber rifle, Kel-Tec, Model PLR-16, 5.56 mm caliber semi-automatic pistol, Stoeger Arms, 16-gauge shotgun, Mossberg, 20-gauge shotgun, Browning A5 Magnum, 12-gauge shotgun, Benelli Arms, 12-gauge shotgun, Pioneer Arms Co., 20-gauge shotgun, Remington Arms Company, Inc., 870 Super Mag, 12-gauge shotgun, Maverick Arms, 12-gauge shotgun, 10-gauge shotgun of unknown manufacturer, Winchester SX3, 12-gauge shotgun, Mossberg shotgun, Remington Arms Company, Inc., Model 700, .204 caliber rifle, DPMS Inc., A15, .223 caliber rifle, Winchester 1200, 12-gauge shotgun, Henry Repeating Rifle Company rifle, Rogue Rifle Company, Inc., Chipmunk, .22 caliber rifle, Browning, 7 mm caliber rifle, Savage 23D, .22 caliber rifle, Ruger M77 Hawkeye, 25-06 caliber rifle, Harrington and Richardson 700, .22 caliber rifle, Marlin Firearms Co., .22 caliber rifle, Vanguard rifle, Taurus rifle, Winchester 70, 30-06 caliber rifle, Ruger M77 rifle, Black-in-color rifle, Browning Buckmark, .22 caliber rifle, Savage, .22 caliber rifle, Winchester rifle, Remington Arms Company, Inc., 700, 22-250 caliber rifle and North American Arms revolver |
| 4:2014cv00136 |
| October 23, 2014 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota |
| Northwestern Office |
| McKenzie |
| Daniel L. Hovland |
| Charles S. Miller |
| Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1345 |
| None |
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the North Dakota 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.
