LOUGHRY v. USA

LOUGHRY v. USA

Petitioner:	ROGER LOUGHRY
Respondent:	UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Case Number:	1:2015cv00444
Filed:	March 16, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office:	Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge:	Sarah Evans Barker
Presiding Judge:	Debra McVicker Lynch
Nature of Suit:	Prisoner: Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
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
March 29, 2018	Filing 69 ORDER Denying Motion for Relief Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and Denying a Certificate of Appealability. Mr. Loughry is not entitled to relief on his § 2255 motion. There was no ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct or judicial misconduct. Accordingly, his motion for relief pursuant to § 2255 is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue and a copy of this Entry shall be docketed in No. 1:08-cr -00132-SEB-TAB-5. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the Court finds that Mr. Loughry has failed to show that reasonable jurists would find "it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right" and "debatable whether [this court] was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Court therefore denies a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 3/29/2018. Copy sent to Petitioner via U.S. Mail(LDH)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 29, 2018

Filing 69 ORDER Denying Motion for Relief Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and Denying a Certificate of Appealability. Mr. Loughry is not entitled to relief on his § 2255 motion. There was no ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct or judicial misconduct. Accordingly, his motion for relief pursuant to § 2255 is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue and a copy of this Entry shall be docketed in No. 1:08-cr -00132-SEB-TAB-5. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the Court finds that Mr. Loughry has failed to show that reasonable jurists would find "it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right" and "debatable whether [this court] was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Court therefore denies a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 3/29/2018. Copy sent to Petitioner via U.S. Mail(LDH)

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 Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: LOUGHRY v. USA
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: ROGER LOUGHRY
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 ]
Respondent: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Represented By:	Steven D. DeBrota
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?