Cases

PER CURIAM: * Counsel appointed to represent Steven Robert Barth has requested leave to withdraw from this appeal and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Barth has received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief and has filed a response. Our independent review of the brief, the record, and Barth’s response discloses no

488 F.Supp.2d 874 (2007) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Shawn Leo BARTH, Defendant. Shawn Leo Barth, Petitioner, v. United States of America, Respondent. Nos. 1:03-cr-046, 1:06-cv-097. United States District Court, D. North Dakota, Southwestern Division. May 22, 2007. *875 *876</

288 F.Supp.2d 1021 (2003) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Shawn Leo BARTH, et al., Defendants. No. C1-03-046. United States District Court, D. North Dakota, Southwestern Division. October 30, 2003. *1022 *1023 *1024 Orell D. Schmitz, Schmitz Moench

291 F.Supp.2d 1079 (2003) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Shawn Leo BARTH, et al., Defendant. No. C1-03-046. United States District Court, D. North Dakota, Southwestern Division. November 14, 2003. *1080 Orell D. Schmitz, Schmitz Moench and Schmidt, Bismarck, ND, Benjamin C. Pulkrabek, Pulkrabek Law Firm, Mandan, ND, for

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT PINKS’ MOTION IN LIMINE HOVLAND, Chief Judge. Before the Court is Defendant Thomas D. Pinks’ (“Pinks”) Motion in Limine. Pinks seeks to exclude the admission into evidence of his 1998 conviction for delivering marijuana and all references to his use of illegal drugs. Pinks also asserts that the Government did not give adequate notice under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence

26 F.Supp.2d 929 (1998) UNITED STATES of America, v. Michael J. BARTH, Defendant. No. MO-98-CR-33. United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Midland/Odessa Division. September 21, 1998. *930 *931 *932 G. Glenn Roque-Jackson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Midland

66 F.3d 309 U.S.v.Barth NO. 94-1322 United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit. Aug 25, 1995 Appeal From: D.Conn. 90-cr-5 1 AFFIRMED.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.

788 F.Supp. 1055 (1992) UNITED STATES of America v. Michael Floyd BARTH. Crim. No. 4-91-103. United States District Court, D. Minnesota, Fourth Division. April 9, 1992. *1056 Jeffrey Paulson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., for U.S. Michael McGlennen, Minneapolis, Minn., for Michael Floyd Barth. SENTE

932 F.2d 956 U.S.v.Barth NO. 90-1599 United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit. APR 18, 1991 1 Appeal From: D.Conn. 2 AFFIRMED.

t; ii i"li rt F ii'!15 ",;"5;tt llntfu @nite! btstts @ourt otfelerul @tufms No. l7-1037L FILED (Filed: March 23,2018)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JOHN S. BARTH, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 22-955 (JEB) v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Pro se Plaintiff John S. Barth has waged a protracted litigation campaign against myriad Florida-based individuals and

745 F.2d 184 84-2 USTC P 9828 UNITED STATES of America and Philip J. Kennedy, SpecialAgent, Internal Revenue Service, Petitioners-Appellees,v.Leslie R. BARTH; Leslie R. Barth Associates, P.C., a/k/aBarth & Richheimer, P.C., Leslie R. Barth Organization,Inc., Southeastern Realty Associates, Inc., North AmericanInvestment Resources, Inc., and Bismark Realty Consultants,Inc., Respondents-A

591 F.Supp. 91 (1984) UNITED STATES of America and Philip J. Kennedy, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service, Petitioners, v. Leslie R. BARTH; Leslie R. Barth Associates, P.C. a/k/a Barth & Richheimer, P.C.; Leslie R. Barth Organization, Inc.; Southeastern Realty Associates, Inc.; North American Investment Resources, Inc.; and Bismark Realty Consultants, Inc., Respondents. Civ. No. H 82-1138. Unit

GEORGE C. PRATT, Circuit Judge. Respondents, Leslie R. Barth and five corporations of which he is president, appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, José A. Cabranes, Judge, enforcing five Internal Revenue Service (IRS) summonses pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7604(b) (1982). We reverse in part and affirm in part. I. During the course of an invest

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, denied.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.

540 U.S. 1049 BARTHv.UNITED STATES. No. 03-469. Supreme Court of United States. December 1, 2003. 1 Appeal from the C. A. Fed. Cir. 2 Certiorari denied. Reported below: 76 Fed. App