Pendleton v. United States of America (INMATE 3)

Justia Dockets & Filings Eleventh Circuit Alabama Middle District Pendleton v. United States of America (INMATE 3)

Pendleton v. United States of America (INMATE 3)

Plaintiff:	Eugene Lamar Pendleton
Defendant:	United States of America
Case Number:	2:2016cv00482
Filed:	June 22, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
Office:	Montgomery Office
County:	XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge:	Myron H. Thompson
Presiding Judge:	Wallace Capel
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
August 18, 2016	Filing 11 ORDERED as follows: (1) Petitioner Eugene Lamar Pendleton's 9 objection to the magistrate judge's order denying his motion to stay is sustained; (2) The 6 motion to stay is granted, and all proceedings in this action are stayed for a pe riod of time extending, at minimum, until notification to the court of the resolution of the Supreme Court's decision in Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544, 136 S. Ct. 2510 (June 27, 2016) (granting certiorari); (3) The parties shall file a j oint status report, updating the court on the disposition of petitioner Pendleton's appeal before the Eleventh Circuit and the disposition of Beckles before the Supreme Court, on the first Monday in February and July, beginning on 2/6/2017, until the stay is dissolved; DIRECTING the clerk to close this case administratively. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/18/2016. (wcl, )

Date Filed

Document Text

August 18, 2016

Filing 11 ORDERED as follows: (1) Petitioner Eugene Lamar Pendleton's 9 objection to the magistrate judge's order denying his motion to stay is sustained; (2) The 6 motion to stay is granted, and all proceedings in this action are stayed for a pe riod of time extending, at minimum, until notification to the court of the resolution of the Supreme Court's decision in Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544, 136 S. Ct. 2510 (June 27, 2016) (granting certiorari); (3) The parties shall file a j oint status report, updating the court on the disposition of petitioner Pendleton's appeal before the Eleventh Circuit and the disposition of Beckles before the Supreme Court, on the first Monday in February and July, beginning on 2/6/2017, until the stay is dissolved; DIRECTING the clerk to close this case administratively. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/18/2016. (wcl, )

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 Alabama Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Pendleton v. United States of America (INMATE 3)
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Eugene Lamar Pendleton
Represented By:	Patricia Vanessa Kemp
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 ]
Defendant: United States of America
Represented By:	Kevin P Davidson
Represented By:	Verne H. Speirs
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?