United States of America v. Eight Hundred Twenty-Five (825) Firearms, more or less

Justia Dockets & Filings Fourth Circuit West Virginia Southern District United States of America v. Eight Hundred Twenty-Five (825) Firearms, more or less

United States of America v. Eight Hundred Twenty-Five (825) Firearms, more or less

Plaintiff:	United States of America
Defendant:	Eight Hundred Twenty-Five (825) Firearms, more or less
Case Number:	2:2012cv00073
Filed:	January 13, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
Office:	Charleston Office
County:	Boone
Presiding Judge:	John T. Copenhaver
Nature of Suit:	Other
Cause of Action:	18 U.S.C. § 924
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
November 16, 2012	Filing 33 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER pursuant to the United States' 26 motion to strike the Verified Claim and to 27 suspend the order and notice, and the interested parties' 28 motion to continue deadlines; in the event that reading of t he Verified Claim is inaccurate, directing the interested parties to file separate Verified Claims setting forth their respective ownership interests in the defendant property in accordance with Supplemental Admiralty Rule G(5) by 11/26/2012; denying the United States' 26 MOTION to Strike the Verified Claim; granting interested parties' 28 MOTION to continue deadlines; directing the interested parties to file their answers by the 15th day following entry of the Judgment; and this action is stayed pending the further order of the court. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 11/16/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented parties) (taq)

Date Filed

Document Text

November 16, 2012

Filing 33 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER pursuant to the United States' 26 motion to strike the Verified Claim and to 27 suspend the order and notice, and the interested parties' 28 motion to continue deadlines; in the event that reading of t he Verified Claim is inaccurate, directing the interested parties to file separate Verified Claims setting forth their respective ownership interests in the defendant property in accordance with Supplemental Admiralty Rule G(5) by 11/26/2012; denying the United States' 26 MOTION to Strike the Verified Claim; granting interested parties' 28 MOTION to continue deadlines; directing the interested parties to file their answers by the 15th day following entry of the Judgment; and this action is stayed pending the further order of the court. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 11/16/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented parties) (taq)

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 West Virginia Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: United States of America v. Eight Hundred Twenty-Five (825) Firearms, more or less
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:	Betty A. Pullin
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: Eight Hundred Twenty-Five (825) Firearms, more or less
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.

Why Is My Information Online?