Aruda v. USA

Aruda v. USA

Petitioner:	Patricia Aruda
Respondent:	USA
Case Number:	1:2016cv00642
Filed:	November 30, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the District of Hawaii
Office:	Hawaii Office
County:	Honolulu
Presiding Judge:	KEVIN S.C. CHANG
Presiding Judge:	DERRICK K. WATSON
Nature of Suit:	Motions to Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2255
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
May 3, 2017	Filing 4 ORDER (1) DENYING IN PART MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, ORCORRECT SENTENCE; AND (2) DIRECTING GOVERNMENT TO FILE RESPONSE re 1 - Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 5/3/2017. (CR 14-00577 DKW ; CV 16-00642 DKW-KSC) "For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Aruda's Section 2255 Motion in part, as to grounds two, three, and four. In addition, the Court DENIES a COA as to those grounds. As to ground one, alleg ing ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to file an appeal, the United States is DIRECTED to file a Response pursuant to Flores - Ortega and Sandoval - Lopez by June 2, 2017. Because issues remain with Aruda 's Section 2255 Motion, it is premature to enter judgment. The Court will further address ground one upon review of the Government's Response." (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Patricia Aruda shall be served by first class mail at the address of record on May 4, 2017.

Date Filed

Document Text

May 3, 2017

Filing 4 ORDER (1) DENYING IN PART MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, ORCORRECT SENTENCE; AND (2) DIRECTING GOVERNMENT TO FILE RESPONSE re 1 - Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 5/3/2017. (CR 14-00577 DKW ; CV 16-00642 DKW-KSC) "For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Aruda's Section 2255 Motion in part, as to grounds two, three, and four. In addition, the Court DENIES a COA as to those grounds. As to ground one, alleg ing ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to file an appeal, the United States is DIRECTED to file a Response pursuant to Flores - Ortega and Sandoval - Lopez by June 2, 2017. Because issues remain with Aruda 's Section 2255 Motion, it is premature to enter judgment. The Court will further address ground one upon review of the Government's Response." (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Patricia Aruda shall be served by first class mail at the address of record on May 4, 2017.

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

Search for this case: Aruda v. USA
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: USA
Represented By:	Thomas Muehleck(Designation Government)
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 ]
Petitioner: Patricia Aruda
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?