Dinkins v. USA

Dinkins v. USA

Petitioner:	Robert O. Dinkins
Respondent:	USA
Case Number:	4:2017cv02296
Filed:	August 22, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office:	St. Louis Office
County:	St. Louis - City
Presiding Judge:	Charles A. Shaw
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
July 25, 2018	Filing 26 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant's original motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence is DENIED as moot. [Doc. 1 ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall correct the docke t entry for Document 14, currently docketed as a Motion of Grant Judgment to a "Reply to Document 13 Government's Response." IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that movant Robert Dinkins' amended motion to vacate, set aside, or co rrect sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED. [Doc. 10 ]IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability as to any of the claims raised in movant's § 2255 motion. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 342 (2003). A judgment will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 7/25/18. (JWD)
September 20, 2017	Filing 12 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant's motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. [Doc. 2]. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 9/20/2017. (MRC)

Date Filed

Document Text

July 25, 2018

Filing 26 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant's original motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence is DENIED as moot. [Doc. 1 ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall correct the docke t entry for Document 14, currently docketed as a Motion of Grant Judgment to a "Reply to Document 13 Government's Response." IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that movant Robert Dinkins' amended motion to vacate, set aside, or co rrect sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED. [Doc. 10 ]IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability as to any of the claims raised in movant's § 2255 motion. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 342 (2003). A judgment will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 7/25/18. (JWD)

September 20, 2017

Filing 12 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant's motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. [Doc. 2]. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 9/20/2017. (MRC)

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: Dinkins 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:	Allison H. Behrens(Designation Assistant US Attorney)
Represented By:	Thomas J. Mehan(Designation Assistant US Attorney)
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: Robert O. Dinkins
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?