Kim v. USA

Respondent: USA
Petitioner: Sang Ho Kim
Case Number: 1:2008cv00018
Filed: October 24, 2008
Court: Guam District Court
Office: Prisoner: Vacate Sentence Office
County: Guam
Presiding Judge: Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Jury Demanded By: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
September 14, 2010 4 Opinion or Order of the Court Opinion and Order denying 1 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255). Furthermore, the court does not find that the Petitioner "has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right". Therefore, the court will NOT issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Chief Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood on 9/14/2010. (fad)

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

Search for this case: Kim v. USA
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: USA
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 ]
Petitioner: Sang Ho Kim
Represented By: Howard Trapp
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.