Raymond Bingham v. United States of America

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California Central District Raymond Bingham v. United States of America

Raymond Bingham v. United States of America

Petitioner:	Raymond Bingham
Respondent:	United States of America
Case Number:	2:2010cv02596
Filed:	April 9, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge:	Christina A. Snyder
Nature of Suit:	Prisoner: Vacate Sentence

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
January 24, 2011	Filing 22 ORDER RE PETITIONER'S THIRD MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR RELIEF UNDER CORAM NOBIS AND MOTIONS FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF AND TO INVOKE THE COURT'S EQUITABLE AUTHORITY by Judge Christina A. Snyder: In Petitioner 9;s Third and most recent Motion for Reconsideration 19 , 20 , petitioner focuses his arguments on the retroactive applicability of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. Records in a prior federal habeas corpus action brought by petitioner, of which thi s Court has taken judicial notice 21 , show that on 10/10/1997, petitioner filed his first federal habeas corpus petition challenging his sentence. As this Court previously discussed in its 10/19/2010 and 11/30/2010 orders denying petitioner's first and second motions for reconsideration, respectively, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 does not apply retroactively. Having considered petitioner's arguments, the Court finds that the record shows conclusively that petitioner is not entitled to the requested relief. The Court concludes that an evidentiary hearing is not required to adjudicate this matter. For the reasons discussed above, petitioner's petition is hereby DISMISSED. (gk)
November 30, 2010	Filing 18 PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR RELIEF UNDER CORAM NOBIS AND MOTIONS FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF AND TO INVOKE THE COURT'S EQUITABLE AUTHORITY by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Petitioner Raymond Binghamfiled a second motion for reconsideration 17 of this Court's 8/9/2010 order 9 , pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Specifically, in this second motion, petitioner restricts his arguments to the retroactive applicability of the Fair Sentencing Act of 201 0, and the improper treatment of the 4/9/2010 petition 1 as a second or successive Section 2255 motion. The Court finds that the record shows conclusively that petitioner is not entitled to the requested relief. The Court concludes that an evidentiary hearing is not required to adjudicate this matter. For the reasons discussed above, petitioner's petition is hereby DISMISSED. (gk)

Date Filed

Document Text

January 24, 2011

Filing 22 ORDER RE PETITIONER'S THIRD MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR RELIEF UNDER CORAM NOBIS AND MOTIONS FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF AND TO INVOKE THE COURT'S EQUITABLE AUTHORITY by Judge Christina A. Snyder: In Petitioner 9;s Third and most recent Motion for Reconsideration 19 , 20 , petitioner focuses his arguments on the retroactive applicability of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. Records in a prior federal habeas corpus action brought by petitioner, of which thi s Court has taken judicial notice 21 , show that on 10/10/1997, petitioner filed his first federal habeas corpus petition challenging his sentence. As this Court previously discussed in its 10/19/2010 and 11/30/2010 orders denying petitioner's first and second motions for reconsideration, respectively, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 does not apply retroactively. Having considered petitioner's arguments, the Court finds that the record shows conclusively that petitioner is not entitled to the requested relief. The Court concludes that an evidentiary hearing is not required to adjudicate this matter. For the reasons discussed above, petitioner's petition is hereby DISMISSED. (gk)

November 30, 2010

Filing 18 PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR RELIEF UNDER CORAM NOBIS AND MOTIONS FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF AND TO INVOKE THE COURT'S EQUITABLE AUTHORITY by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Petitioner Raymond Binghamfiled a second motion for reconsideration 17 of this Court's 8/9/2010 order 9 , pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Specifically, in this second motion, petitioner restricts his arguments to the retroactive applicability of the Fair Sentencing Act of 201 0, and the improper treatment of the 4/9/2010 petition 1 as a second or successive Section 2255 motion. The Court finds that the record shows conclusively that petitioner is not entitled to the requested relief. The Court concludes that an evidentiary hearing is not required to adjudicate this matter. For the reasons discussed above, petitioner's petition is hereby DISMISSED. (gk)

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 California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Raymond Bingham v. United States of America
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Raymond Bingham
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 ]
Respondent: United States of America
Represented By:	Angela L Sanneman
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?