Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “United States v. SHAKOOR”
United States v. Shakoorpublic domain
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Abdullah Rasool Shakoor seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion and denying his motion to recuse. The order is not appealabl
Shakoor v. United Statespublic domain
537 U.S. 914 SHAKOORv.UNITED STATES. No. 02-5426. Supreme Court of United States. October 7, 2002. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 2 C. A
Shakoor v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Shakoor v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
53 F.3d 329NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Benancio CEPEDA, Defendant-Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Ameer Ali SHAKOOR, Defendant-
Shakoor v. VXI Global Solutions, Inc.public domain
[Cite as Shakoor v. VXI Global Solutions, Inc., 2017-Ohio-8018.] STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT LASHONNA SHAKOOR, et al. ) ) PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS ) ) CASE NO. 16 MA 0038 V
In re Shakoorpublic domain
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Abdullah Shakoor petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order instructing the district court to act on his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. We conclude that Shakoor is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and s
Shakoor Supermark. v. Old Bridgepublic domain
19 A.3d 1038 (2011) 420 N.J. Super. 193 SHAKOOR SUPERMARKETS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OLD BRIDGE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD, and The Golf Center, Inc., Defendants-Respondents. Foxborough Village Homeowners Association, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Township of Old Bridge, Township of Old Bridge Planning Board, and The Golf Center, Inc., Defendants. DOCKET NO. A-3765-09T3 Su
Shakoor v. Collinspublic domain
63 F.Supp.2d 858 (1999) Ibn A. SHAKOOR, Petitioner, v. Terry COLLINS, Warden Respondent. No. 4:97CV1930. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. September 23, 1999. *859 *860 Ibn A. Shakoor, Mansfield, OH, pro se. Lillian B. Earl, Office of the Assistant Attorney Gene
United States v. Khanpublic domain
497 F.3d 204 (2007) UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mohammad KHAN, Akbar Khan, Muhammad Room, Montaz, Humayyum, John Patrick Donohue, as attorney for Khista Bacha, Amir Amaan, Dor Amaan, Bacha Khan, Ali Sher, Liaqat Ali, Sami Ur-Rahman, Said Ur Rahman, Gul Bacha, Bahroz Khan, Rahman Ali, Hanifa, Abdul Samad Khan, Aftab Ahmed, Sultan Zaib, Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Rashid Ahmed, Barakat Khwaja, Haroon Rasheed, Muzzafer Khan, Aftab Ud Din, Aziz Ur
New Vision Home Health Care v. Leavitt Ex Rel. United States Department of Health & Human Servicespublic domain
(2008) NEW VISION HOME HEALTH CARE and Saleem Bin Shakoor, Plaintiffs, v. Michael LEAVITT, as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Kerry Weems, as Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, National Government Services, and Linda Mann, as Manager of Benefit Integrity Investigations for TrustSolutions, LLC, Defendants. Case No. 08-11704. United St
United States v. Dawsonpublic domain
556 F.Supp. 418 (1982) UNITED STATES of America v. Lonnie DAWSON, a/k/a "Abdul Salim", William Roy Hoskins, a/k/a "Muhammad Waliyud-Din", Robert Hardwick, a/k/a "Fareed Abdul Shakoor". Cr. No. 82-00128-01 to 82-00128-03. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. December 21, 1982. *419 *420
United States v. $293,316public domain
05-6522-cv United States v. $293,316 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 4 August Term 2006 5 (Argued: April 18, 2007 Decided: August 10, 2007) 6 Docket No. 05-6522-cv 7 -----------------------------------------------------x 8 United States, 9 10 Plaintiff-Appellee, 11 12 -- v. -- 13 14 Mohammad Khan
Curtis W. Morrison v. Judge Willie Lipscomb and Judge Harold Ryan, Judge Adam Shakoor and Does I Thru Vpublic domain
BOGGS, Circuit Judge. Curtis W. Morrison appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Morrison sued three Michigan state court judges (Judges Lipscomb, Ryan, and Shakoor) and five unknown persons for various alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. The district court dismissed all of Morrison’s claims. Another panel of this court, acting pursuant to Rule 9 of this Court, summarily affi
170 F.3d 359 79 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 323,75 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,820FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE NEWARK LODGE NO. 12; FaruqAbdul-Aziz; Shakoor Mustafav.CITY OF NEWARK; Newark Police Department; Joseph J.Santiago, Newark Police Director; Thomas C.O'Reilly, Newark Chief of Police, Appellants. No. 97-5542 United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit.
Geltzer v. Bloom (In Re M. Silverman Laces, Inc.)public domain
404 B.R. 345 (2009) In re M. SILVERMAN LACES, INC., Debtor. Robert L. Geltzer, as Successor Chapter 7 Trustee, Plaintiff, v. Howard Bloom, Leonard Edelson, Achille Gaetano, All Lace Processing Corporation f/k/a All Lace Corporation,: and Westchester Lace Corporation, Defendants. Banktruptcy No. 97-43223(RDD). Adversary No. 99-8600(RDD). United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York.
Thomas Lee Gudinas v. State of Floridapublic domain
Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC17-919 ____________ THOMAS LEE GUDINAS, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [January 30, 2018] PER CURIAM. We have for review T
Glen Edward Rogers v. State of Floridapublic domain
Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC17-945 ____________ GLEN EDWARD ROGERS, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [January 30, 2018] PER CURIAM. We have for revie
Melvin Trotter v. State of Floridapublic domain
Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC17-950 ____________ MELVIN TROTTER, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [January 26, 2018] PER CURIAM. We have for rev