John Charles Wellman v. United States of America
||John Charles Wellman
||United States of America
||April 12, 2013
||West Virginia Southern District Court
||Thomas E. Johnston
||Dwane L. Tinsley
|Nature of Suit:
||Prisoner: Vacate Sentence
|Cause of Action:
||28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
|Jury Demanded By:
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|June 2, 2014
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: It is ORDERED that the United States' [189-1] Motion for a Written Privilege Waiver is DENIED. However, it is further ORDERED that the United States' [189-2] Motion for an Order Directing Movant's Former C ounsel to Provide Information to the United States Concerning Movant's Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is GRANTED to the extent that Movant's trial counsel, Mr. David Bungard, is ORDERED to file an affidavit by 7/2/2014. It is OR DERED that the attorney-client privilege, which attaches to the communications between Movant and Mr. Bungard, shall not be deemed automatically waived in any other Federal or State proceeding. Finally, it is hereby ORDERED that the United States 9; [189-3] Motion for an Abeyance is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the United States' response to Movant's Section 2255 Motion shall be filed by 7/16/2014, and Movant's reply shall be filed by 9/1/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley on 6/2/2014. (cc: Movant; counsel of record and Mr. David Bungard, Assistant Federal Public Defender) (arb)
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 West Virginia Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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.