Luster v. USA

Luster v. USA

Petitioner:	Michael Anthony Luster
Respondent:	USA
Case Number:	1:2014cv00107
Filed:	July 25, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office:	Cape Girardeau Office
County:	Cape Girardeau
Presiding Judge:	Carol E. Jackson
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
May 18, 2017	Filing 20 MEMORANDUM: For the reasons discussed above, the Court concludes that Luster is not entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on the claim he asserts in the motion to vacate. Therefore, the motion will be denied without a hearing. See Eng elen v. United States, 68 F.3d 238, 240 (8th Cir. 1995). Additionally, the Court finds that Luster has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, no certificate of appealability will be issued. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 5/18/2017. (JMC)
May 17, 2017	Filing 18 MEMORANDUM: For the reasons discussed above, the Court concludes that Luster is not entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255 based on the claim he asserts in the supplemental motion to vacate. Therefore, the motion will be denied without a hearing. S ee Engelen v. United States, 68 F.3d 238, 240 (8th Cir. 1995). Additionally, the Court finds that Luster has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, no certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 2253. An order consistent with this memorandum opinion will be filed separately. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 5/17/2017. (JMC)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 18, 2017

Filing 20 MEMORANDUM: For the reasons discussed above, the Court concludes that Luster is not entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on the claim he asserts in the motion to vacate. Therefore, the motion will be denied without a hearing. See Eng elen v. United States, 68 F.3d 238, 240 (8th Cir. 1995). Additionally, the Court finds that Luster has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, no certificate of appealability will be issued. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 5/18/2017. (JMC)

May 17, 2017

Filing 18 MEMORANDUM: For the reasons discussed above, the Court concludes that Luster is not entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255 based on the claim he asserts in the supplemental motion to vacate. Therefore, the motion will be denied without a hearing. S ee Engelen v. United States, 68 F.3d 238, 240 (8th Cir. 1995). Additionally, the Court finds that Luster has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, no certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 2253. An order consistent with this memorandum opinion will be filed separately. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 5/17/2017. (JMC)

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 Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Luster 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: Michael Anthony Luster
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: USA
Represented By:	Larry H. Ferrell(Designation Assistant US Attorney)
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?