Bond v. Holtzen et al

Plaintiff: Neil Rusty Bond
Defendant: Timothy Holtzen, Anders Rosenquist, Florence Bruemmer and United States of America
Case Number: 2:2008cv00077
Filed: January 15, 2008
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Phoenix Division Office
County: Maricopa
Presiding Judge: David G Campbell
Referring Judge: Charles R Pyle
Nature of Suit: Motions to Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
January 11, 2011 215 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying 214 Motion for Reconsideration. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 1/11/11.(LAD)
November 4, 2010 208 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting 204 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/4/10.(REW)
July 22, 2010 200 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting in part 199 Motion for Extension of Time. Dft shall have until 8/24/10 to file a notice of appeal, a motion for certificate of appealability, and motion to proceed IFP. The Court's denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 196 at 6, 5) is vacated. Defendant's resentencing is set for 11/1/10 at 4:30 p.m.Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/21/10.(MHU)
June 25, 2010 196 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 187 , 51 and 83 as set forth in this order. The ineffective assistance of counsel claim (ground three) asserted in Defendants amended motion to vacate sentence (Dkt. #303 in CR-03- 974) is granted in pa rt and dismissed in part. Defendants conviction is upheld and his restitution sentence is vacated. Defendant will be re-sentenced solely on the issue of restitution. The other grounds for relief asserted in the amended motion 303 are dismissed. A status hearing is set for July 14. 2010 at 2:30 p.m. A certificate of appealability, and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, are denied. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 6/24/10. (LAD)

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 Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Bond v. Holtzen et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Neil Rusty Bond
Represented By: Rene Antonio Felix
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Timothy Holtzen
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Anders Rosenquist
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Florence Bruemmer
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: United States of America
Represented By: Randall Mack Howe
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 [ 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?