Cary v. United States of America

Cary v. United States of America

Petitioner:	Jeremy S Cary
Respondent:	United States of America
Case Number:	1:2013cv01529
Filed:	November 8, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of Illinois
Office:	Peoria Office
County:	Tazewell
Presiding Judge:	Joe Billy McDade
Nature of Suit:	Motions to Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2255
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
December 23, 2013	Filing 14 ORDER & OPINION entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 12/23/13. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1.) Respondent's Motion for Order Directing Attorney Robert Parker to Submit an Affidavit in Response to Petitioner's Claim of Ineffective Assistance o f Counsel 9 is GRANTED. 2.) Within 21 days of the date of this Order, Attorney Robert Parker, panel attorney, SHALL submit to the United States Attorneys Office, Central District of Illinois, an affidavit addressing the following questions: a. Did Mr. Parker receive a letter or any other communication from Petitioner Jeremy Cary discussing the issue of appeal? b. Did Mr. Parker have any conversations with Petitioner discussing the issue of appeal? 3.) Respondent SHALL include a copy of Mr. Pa rker's affidavit with its response to Petitioner's § 2255 Motion when such response is filed with the Court, and shall serve a copy of both the response and the affidavit upon Petitioner at that time. 4.) Petitioner's renewed Moti on for Appointment of Counsel 13 is DENIED. 5.) Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration/Clarification 6 is DENIED. 6. Petitioner's Motion to Amend 11 is GRANTED. 7.) Petitioner's Request for Emergency Review 12 is DENIED. 8.) T o allow Respondent sufficient time to respond to Petitioner's new claims, and to receive Mr. Parker's affidavit, Respondent's deadline to file a response to Petitioner's § 2255 Motion is sua sponte EXTENDED to January 24, 2014. SEE FULL ORDER. cc: Petitioner by Clerk. (FDT, ilcd)
November 22, 2013	Filing 5 ORDER & OPINION entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 11/22/2013: IT IS ORDERED:1. Petitioner's fourth basis for relief, regarding a special condition that prevents him from contacting his son, is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governi ng Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts. 2. The Clerk SHALL serve a copy of the Motion 1 upon Respondent pursuant to Rule 3(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts. 3. Petit ioner MAY file a brief with this Court within twenty-one days of the date of this Order stating whether any claims are intended to relate to his underlying sentence rather than the Revocation Judgment and providing any additional explanation for why he did not appeal the Revocation Judgment. 4. Respondent SHALL file an answer, motion, or other responsive pleading within fifty-six days after service of this Order. Respondent should address any facts which would establish whether Petitioner' s claims are untimely or procedurally barred. In addition, Respondent should address the merits of Petitioner's constitutional claims and otherwise fully comply with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States D istrict Courts. 5. Petitioner MAY file a reply to Respondent's response within twenty-eight days of being served with the response. 6. Petitioner SHALL serve upon the United States Attorney's office a copy ofevery further pleading or other document submitted for consideration by the Court. 7. Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel 3 is DENIED. (SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER)(JRK, ilcd)

Date Filed

Document Text

December 23, 2013

Filing 14 ORDER & OPINION entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 12/23/13. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1.) Respondent's Motion for Order Directing Attorney Robert Parker to Submit an Affidavit in Response to Petitioner's Claim of Ineffective Assistance o f Counsel 9 is GRANTED. 2.) Within 21 days of the date of this Order, Attorney Robert Parker, panel attorney, SHALL submit to the United States Attorneys Office, Central District of Illinois, an affidavit addressing the following questions: a. Did Mr. Parker receive a letter or any other communication from Petitioner Jeremy Cary discussing the issue of appeal? b. Did Mr. Parker have any conversations with Petitioner discussing the issue of appeal? 3.) Respondent SHALL include a copy of Mr. Pa rker's affidavit with its response to Petitioner's § 2255 Motion when such response is filed with the Court, and shall serve a copy of both the response and the affidavit upon Petitioner at that time. 4.) Petitioner's renewed Moti on for Appointment of Counsel 13 is DENIED. 5.) Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration/Clarification 6 is DENIED. 6. Petitioner's Motion to Amend 11 is GRANTED. 7.) Petitioner's Request for Emergency Review 12 is DENIED. 8.) T o allow Respondent sufficient time to respond to Petitioner's new claims, and to receive Mr. Parker's affidavit, Respondent's deadline to file a response to Petitioner's § 2255 Motion is sua sponte EXTENDED to January 24, 2014. SEE FULL ORDER. cc: Petitioner by Clerk. (FDT, ilcd)

November 22, 2013

Filing 5 ORDER & OPINION entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 11/22/2013: IT IS ORDERED:1. Petitioner's fourth basis for relief, regarding a special condition that prevents him from contacting his son, is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governi ng Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts. 2. The Clerk SHALL serve a copy of the Motion 1 upon Respondent pursuant to Rule 3(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts. 3. Petit ioner MAY file a brief with this Court within twenty-one days of the date of this Order stating whether any claims are intended to relate to his underlying sentence rather than the Revocation Judgment and providing any additional explanation for why he did not appeal the Revocation Judgment. 4. Respondent SHALL file an answer, motion, or other responsive pleading within fifty-six days after service of this Order. Respondent should address any facts which would establish whether Petitioner' s claims are untimely or procedurally barred. In addition, Respondent should address the merits of Petitioner's constitutional claims and otherwise fully comply with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States D istrict Courts. 5. Petitioner MAY file a reply to Respondent's response within twenty-eight days of being served with the response. 6. Petitioner SHALL serve upon the United States Attorney's office a copy ofevery further pleading or other document submitted for consideration by the Court. 7. Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel 3 is DENIED. (SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER)(JRK, ilcd)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Illinois Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Cary v. United States of America
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: United States of America
Represented By:	Darilynn J Knauss
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Jeremy S Cary
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?