Stuart-Holt v. USA

Stuart-Holt v. USA

Petitioner:	Zakee Stuart-Holt
Respondent:	USA
Case Number:	1:2017cv00748
Filed:	December 26, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the District of New Hampshire
Office:	Concord Office
Presiding Judge:	Landya B. McCafferty
Nature of Suit:	Prisoner: Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
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 24, 2021	Filing 73 ORDER denying 72 Motion for Void Judgment. Because Stuart-Holt has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability of this order. So Ordered by Chief Judge Landya B. McCafferty. (gla)
November 8, 2018	Filing 20 ///ORDER RE 4 AMENDED MOTION to Vacate Sentence pursuant to 28 USC 2255; 10 Motion for Joinder; 17 Motion; 18 Motion to Amend; 19 Motion to Expedite. For the foregoing reasons, Stuart-Holt's motion to j oin petitions (doc. no. 10) is denied to the extent it seeks to join his petition with Hardy's, but granted to the extent it seeks to adopt Hardy's arguments and law cited in her § 2255 petition and subsequent filings. His motion for r elief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (doc. no. 4) is denied. Because Stuart-Holt has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Rule 11(a), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. The clerk of court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. So Ordered by Chief Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(js)

Date Filed

Document Text

September 24, 2021

Filing 73 ORDER denying 72 Motion for Void Judgment. Because Stuart-Holt has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability of this order. So Ordered by Chief Judge Landya B. McCafferty. (gla)

November 8, 2018

Filing 20 ///ORDER RE 4 AMENDED MOTION to Vacate Sentence pursuant to 28 USC 2255; 10 Motion for Joinder; 17 Motion; 18 Motion to Amend; 19 Motion to Expedite. For the foregoing reasons, Stuart-Holt's motion to j oin petitions (doc. no. 10) is denied to the extent it seeks to join his petition with Hardy's, but granted to the extent it seeks to adopt Hardy's arguments and law cited in her § 2255 petition and subsequent filings. His motion for r elief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (doc. no. 4) is denied. Because Stuart-Holt has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Rule 11(a), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. The clerk of court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. So Ordered by Chief Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(js)

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 New Hampshire District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Stuart-Holt 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: Zakee Stuart-Holt
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
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?