Legal cases are often identified by specific numbers that provide a reference for courts, attorneys, and the public to track proceedings, rulings, and filings. Two such identifiers, case number 2013r01804 and court docket number 17-cr-00183, point to specific legal matters that have garnered attention within the judicial system. This article offers a comprehensive examination of these case identifiers, their context, and the significance within the legal framework.
Understanding Case and Docket Numbers
Before delving into the specifics of these cases, it is essential to understand what these numbers represent.
-
case number 2013r01804 and court docket number 17-cr-00183 typically refers to a regulatory or administrative matter, often linked with investigations or proceedings managed by regulatory bodies. The prefix and numbering indicate the year and the sequence of the case.
-
Court Docket Number 17-cr-00183 usually identifies a criminal case filed in federal court, with the “17” denoting the year of filing (2017), “cr” indicating a criminal case, and the rest of the number representing the sequential case number for that year.
These numbers help in organizing and tracking cases efficiently across various court systems.
Background on Case Number 2013r01804
While specific details vary depending on the jurisdiction and nature of the case, cases with the format of 2013r01804 generally involve administrative rulings, regulatory enforcement actions, or compliance investigations. The “2013” suggests that this case was initiated or logged in 2013, and the “r” often stands for “regulatory” or “review.”
Such cases frequently deal with issues including:
-
Violations of federal regulations
-
Compliance with safety or environmental laws
-
Corporate or individual administrative penalties
The administrative or regulatory agencies involved may conduct investigations, issue notices of violation, or impose fines or corrective actions depending on the findings.
Details on Court Docket Number 17-cr-00183
The court docket case number 2013r01804 and court docket number 17-cr-00183 indicates a criminal prosecution filed in 2017. Federal criminal docket numbers such as this usually appear in district courts and correspond to a formal charging document, often an indictment or criminal complaint.
Key features of criminal docket 17-cr-00183 might include:
-
The identity of the defendant(s) charged with criminal offenses
-
The nature of the alleged crimes, which could range from fraud, drug offenses, white-collar crimes, to other federal offenses
-
Proceedings such as arraignment, motions hearings, trial, and sentencing schedules
-
Records of evidence submitted by prosecution and defense
Criminal cases under docket numbers like this go through various phases including investigation, indictment, trial, and possible appeals, with each stage carefully documented in the court docket.
The Intersection and Significance of Both Case Numbers
While case number 2013r01804 and court docket number 17-cr-00183 belong to different categories (administrative vs. criminal), there are scenarios where a regulatory investigation (case 2013r01804) could lead to a criminal prosecution (docket 17-cr-00183). For example, an agency’s findings of violations or fraud in an administrative proceeding could provide evidence that results in criminal charges.
Such a progression highlights the multi-layered nature of the legal system, where administrative oversight and enforcement coexist with judicial prosecution.
Conclusion
case number 2013r01804 and court docket number 17-cr-00183 exemplify the complexity and structured identification system within the legal and judicial process. Administrative and regulatory cases such as 2013r01804 are crucial for upholding laws and standards, while criminal docket numbers like 17-cr-00183 reflect the judiciary’s role in addressing violations through prosecution.
Together, they illustrate how different arms of law enforcement and justice collaborate to ensure accountability, compliance, and legal order. Although unique in their jurisdiction and focus, these cases remind us of the importance of procedural clarity and the rule of law in the functioning of the legal system.
