Davis v. USA

Davis v. USA

Petitioner:	Darryl Lamont Davis
Respondent:	USA
Case Number:	3:2014cv00299
Filed:	June 27, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
Office:	Knoxville Office
County:	Knox
Presiding Judge:	Pamela L Reeves
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
September 29, 2021	Filing 40 ORDER: After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 34], the hearing transcript [Doc. 38], and the parties filings [Docs. 33, 35, 36, & 39], the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 34] in i ts entirety. Petitioners objections [Doc. 35] to the Report and Recommendation are OVERRRULED. Accordingly, ground one of Petitioners 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion [Doc. 1; Crim Doc. 154] is DENIED and DISMISSED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the civil file. Signed by District Judge R Leon Jordan on 9/29/21. (ABF)
May 21, 2019	Filing 17 ORDER DENYING POST-JUDGMENT MOTIONS as to Petitioner Darryl Lamont Davis. Davis motions 4 , 5 , 8 , 15 , and 16 are DENIED. Becausethe Court finds that reasonable jurists would not debate whether Davis Rule 59 motion shouldhav e been resolved differently or that the issues presented herein are deserving of furtherencouragement, the Court denies a certificate of appealability from this decision. Signed by District Judge Pamela L. Reeves on 5/21/19. (c/m to Darryl Lamont Davis 31799-074 HAZELTON F-1 U.S. PENITENTIARY Inmate Mail/Parcels P.O. BOX 2000 BRUCETON MILLS, WV 26525) (ADA)

Date Filed

Document Text

September 29, 2021

Filing 40 ORDER: After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 34], the hearing transcript [Doc. 38], and the parties filings [Docs. 33, 35, 36, & 39], the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 34] in i ts entirety. Petitioners objections [Doc. 35] to the Report and Recommendation are OVERRRULED. Accordingly, ground one of Petitioners 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion [Doc. 1; Crim Doc. 154] is DENIED and DISMISSED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the civil file. Signed by District Judge R Leon Jordan on 9/29/21. (ABF)

May 21, 2019

Filing 17 ORDER DENYING POST-JUDGMENT MOTIONS as to Petitioner Darryl Lamont Davis. Davis motions 4 , 5 , 8 , 15 , and 16 are DENIED. Becausethe Court finds that reasonable jurists would not debate whether Davis Rule 59 motion shouldhav e been resolved differently or that the issues presented herein are deserving of furtherencouragement, the Court denies a certificate of appealability from this decision. Signed by District Judge Pamela L. Reeves on 5/21/19. (c/m to Darryl Lamont Davis 31799-074 HAZELTON F-1 U.S. PENITENTIARY Inmate Mail/Parcels P.O. BOX 2000 BRUCETON MILLS, WV 26525) (ADA)

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

Search for this case: Davis v. USA
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: USA
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: Darryl Lamont Davis
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?