Mirkovic v. United States of America

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Eastern District Mirkovic v. United States of America

Mirkovic v. United States of America

Petitioner:	Dejvid Mirkovic
Respondent:	United States of America
Case Number:	1:2015cv00692
Filed:	February 9, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Brooklyn Office
Presiding Judge:	Eric N. Vitaliano
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
May 11, 2016	Filing 13 OPINION AND ORDER: Mirkovic's motion to substitute counsel is DENIED AS MOOT in Case No. 15-cv-692, because no counsel has been appointed for him. Mirkovic's motion to substitute counsel is GRANTED IN PART in Case No. 12-cr-691, insofar as to Ms. Kellman's representation is withdrawn and the Court will not consider her May 2, 2016 submission on Mirkovic's behalf. Mirkovic's motion to substitute counsel is DENIED IN PART in Case No. 12-cr-691, insofar as the Court decline s to appoint new counsel to represent him on his motion to compel the Government to file a motion for sentence reduction under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35. Mirkovic's motion for a 90-day extension for new counsel to become familiar wit h his case is DENIED AS MOOT, however, the Court AMENDS its briefing schedule dated March 15, 2016. Mirkovic shall file his reply to the Government's response no later than June 27, 2016. Ordered by Visiting Judge VJ-John F. Keenan on 5/11/2016. (Brucella, Michelle)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 11, 2016

Filing 13 OPINION AND ORDER: Mirkovic's motion to substitute counsel is DENIED AS MOOT in Case No. 15-cv-692, because no counsel has been appointed for him. Mirkovic's motion to substitute counsel is GRANTED IN PART in Case No. 12-cr-691, insofar as to Ms. Kellman's representation is withdrawn and the Court will not consider her May 2, 2016 submission on Mirkovic's behalf. Mirkovic's motion to substitute counsel is DENIED IN PART in Case No. 12-cr-691, insofar as the Court decline s to appoint new counsel to represent him on his motion to compel the Government to file a motion for sentence reduction under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35. Mirkovic's motion for a 90-day extension for new counsel to become familiar wit h his case is DENIED AS MOOT, however, the Court AMENDS its briefing schedule dated March 15, 2016. Mirkovic shall file his reply to the Government's response no later than June 27, 2016. Ordered by Visiting Judge VJ-John F. Keenan on 5/11/2016. (Brucella, Michelle)

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 New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Mirkovic 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 ]
Petitioner: Dejvid Mirkovic
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:	Una A. Dean
Represented By:	Marshall L. Miller
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?