Cases 1 - 10 of 15
Anthony Floyd v. USA, et al
as 19-2627
Defendant / Appellee:
BANK OF AMERICA, Third Party Respondent, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ROBERT DE LOS SANTOS, Special Agent and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ANTHONY JAMES FLOYD
Anthony Floyd v. US
as 19-1371
Petitioner / Appellant:
ANTHONY JAMES FLOYD
Respondent / Appellee:
ROBERT DE LOS SANTOS, Special Agent and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Internal Revenue Service
Floyd v. United States, et al
as 19-5018
Petitioner / Appellant:
ANTHONY JAMES FLOYD
Respondent / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE and ROBERT DE LOS SANTOS
Anthony Floyd v. United States, et al
as 19-1274
Petitioner / Appellant:
Anthony James Floyd
Respondent / Appellee:
United States of America, Internal Revenue Service and Robert De Los Santos
Anthony Floyd v. United States, et al
as 19-1253
Petitioner / Appellant:
Anthony James Floyd
Respondent / Appellee:
United States of America, Internal Revenue Service and Robert De Los Santos, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service
Anthony Floyd v. USA, et al
as 19-50100
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MAJOR ROBERT DE LOS SANTOS and INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ANTHONY FLOYD
Floyd v. USA et al
as 6:2018mc00302
Petitioner:
Anthony Floyd
Respondent:
USA, IRS and Major Robert De Los Santos
Floyd v. United States of America et al
as 4:2018mc00612
Respondent:
United States of America, Robert De Los Santos and Internal Revenue Service
Petitioner:
Anthony James Floyd
Floyd v. United States of America et al
as 4:2018mc09018
Respondent:
United States of America, Robert De Los Santos and Internal Revenue Service
Petitioner:
Anthony James Floyd
Interested Party:
UMB Bank, N.A.
Floyd v. Internal Revenue Service et al
as 2:2018cv01517
Defendant:
Internal Revenue Service and Robert De Los Santos
Plaintiff:
Anthony James Floyd
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331
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.
