Stidum v. United States of America

Stidum v. United States of America

Petitioner:	David Stidum
Respondent:	United States of America
Case Number:	4:2011cv00743
Filed:	April 22, 2011
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office:	St. Louis Office
County:	St. Louis - City
Presiding Judge:	Rodney W. Sippel
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
September 5, 2012	Filing 18 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner Stidums motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 # 1 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED this Court will not issue a certificate of appealability, as Stidum has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a federal constitutional right. A separate Judgement will be entered on this same day. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 9/5/2012. (RAK)
May 31, 2011	Filing 9 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent United States of America's Motion to Unseal Document 6 is GRANTED. The transcript of the October 13, 2009 hearing in Case 4:09 CR12RWS shall be temporarily unsealed to allow the parti es to obtain copies of the hearings in this case. I will order the transcript be placed under seal on June 30, 2011. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall show cause, in writing, no later than July 8, 2011 why the relief requested in the instant motion to vacate should not be granted.. Signed by Honorable Rodney W. Sippel on 5/31/11. (LGK)

Date Filed

Document Text

September 5, 2012

Filing 18 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner Stidums motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 # 1 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED this Court will not issue a certificate of appealability, as Stidum has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a federal constitutional right. A separate Judgement will be entered on this same day. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 9/5/2012. (RAK)

May 31, 2011

Filing 9 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent United States of America's Motion to Unseal Document 6 is GRANTED. The transcript of the October 13, 2009 hearing in Case 4:09 CR12RWS shall be temporarily unsealed to allow the parti es to obtain copies of the hearings in this case. I will order the transcript be placed under seal on June 30, 2011. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall show cause, in writing, no later than July 8, 2011 why the relief requested in the instant motion to vacate should not be granted.. Signed by Honorable Rodney W. Sippel on 5/31/11. (LGK)

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

Search for this case: Stidum 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 ]
Respondent: United States of America
Represented By:	Sirena M. Wissler
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: David Stidum
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?