United States v. Bailey

Tenth Circuit

United States v. Bailey

223 F. App'x 807

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedMay 2, 2007

Docket06-6356

StatusUnpublished

This text of 223 F. App'x 807 (United States v. Bailey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Bailey, 223 F. App'x 807 (10th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

MICHAEL W. McCONNELL, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Teddy Leroy Bailey filed what he styled an “Independent Bill In Equity For Relief from Judgment and Action In Aequitas Et In Personam” challenging his previously imposed sentence. The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma correctly dismissed this action for want of jurisdiction. That judgment is AFFIRMED. Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.

*

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

MICHAEL W. McCONNELL, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Teddy Leroy Bailey filed what he styled an “Independent Bill In Equity For Relief from Judgment and Action In Aequitas Et In Personam” challenging his previously imposed sentence. The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma correctly dismissed this action for want of jurisdiction. That judgment is AFFIRMED. Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.

*

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 F. App'x 807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-bailey-ca10-2007.