Harrell v. USA
Petitioner: Timonthy R Harrell
Respondent: USA
Case Number: 2:2010cv02151
Filed: July 15, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Central District of Illinois
Office: Urbana Office
County: Tazewell
Presiding Judge: David G. Bernthal
Presiding Judge: Michael P. McCuskey
Nature of Suit: Motions to Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 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
June 15, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 12 JUDGMENT: It is ordered and adjudged that the petitioner's Section 2255 is denied. This case is terminated. Copy mailed to pro se petitioner at PEKIN FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION Inmate Mail/Parcels PO BOX 5000 PEKIN, IL 61555. (KW, ilcd)
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 Illinois Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Harrell v. USA
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Timonthy R Harrell
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: USA
Represented By: Timothy A Bass
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?