Cascketta v. USA
Petitioner: Karl John Cascketta
Respondent: USA
Case Number: 2:2016cv02042
Filed: June 23, 2016
Court: US District Court for the District of Arizona
Office: Phoenix Division Office
County: Maricopa
Presiding Judge: Deborah M Fine (PS)
Presiding Judge: James A Teilborg
Nature of Suit: Motions to Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255
Jury Demanded By: None
RSS 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
December 18, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 23 ORDER denying 21 Motion for Reconsideration; a certificate of appealability is also denied as to the motion for reconsideration. (See attached order for additional information.). Signed by Senior Judge James A. Teilborg on 12/18/2018. (RMW)
October 19, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 19 ORDER - The Government's 11 Motion is granted to the extent specified herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Movant's 15 motion to appoint new counsel and motion for continuance are denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the 16 R&R is ac cepted and adopted (the objections are overruled) the 1 Motion in this case is denied and dismissed, with prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Govern ing Section 2255 Proceedings, in the event Movant files an appeal, the Court denies issuance of a certificate of appealability because Movant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.1 Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 10/19/2018. (ATD)
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

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?