Shoemake v. USA
Petitioner: Christopher Eric Shoemake
Respondent: USA
Case Number: 1:2015cv00139
Filed: July 29, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office: Cape Girardeau Office
County: Wayne
Presiding Judge: Stephen N. Limbaugh
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
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
May 2, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 17 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to forward a copy of movant's § 2255 motion to the Office of the Public Defender for the Eastern District of Missouri. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Public Defe nder shall notify this Court, within forty-five (45) days of the date of this Memorandum and Order, whether it will be pursuing movant's arguments under Johnson, either by filing a written notice in this action of their intent not to represent m ovant, or by filing an amended motion to vacate, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, also in this action, or a request in the Court of Appeals for leave to bring a successive § 2255 motion, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall hold this matter in abeyance for forty-five (45) days. Response to Court due by 6/16/2016. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 5/2/2016. (JMC)
October 9, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 12 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court's Orders dated September 28, 2015, are VACATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to place this case on the open docket. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is held in ABEYANCE until further notice from the Court. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 10/9/2015. (JMC)
September 28, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 10 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The holding in Johnson does not apply to Chapter Four career offender enhancements, and therefore, Johnson does not provide Shoemake with an avenue for relief. Because Johnson is not available to Shoemake, the motion is time-ba rred. Under § 2255(f)(1), Shoemake had one year from the day the judgment became final to file a § 2255 motion. The one-year period expired on August 5, 2014. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). Finally, Shoemake has failed to show "that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition" is time-barred. Khaimov v. Crist, 297 F.3d 783, 785 (8th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted). Thus, the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 9/28/2015. (JMC)
August 24, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 5 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to forward a copy of movant's § 2255 motion to the Office of the Public Defender for the Eastern District of Missouri. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Public Def ender shall notify this Court, within forty-five (45) days of the date of this Memorandum and Order, whether it will be pursuing movant's arguments under Johnson, either by filing a written notice in this action of their intent not to represent movant, or by filing an amended motion to vacate, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, also in this action, or a request in the Court of Appeals for leave to bring a successive § 2255 motion, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall hold this matter in abeyance for forty-five (45) days. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 8/24/15. (CSG)
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 Missouri Eastern 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?