Scribner II v. USA

Scribner II v. USA

Petitioner:	Donald Raymond Scribner II
Respondent:	USA
Case Number:	3:2013cv01147
Filed:	March 18, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Office:	Dallas Office
County:	Dallas
Presiding Judge:	Reed C O'Connor
Presiding Judge:	Irma Carrillo Ramirez
Nature of Suit:	Prisoner Pet: Motions to 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
July 31, 2017	Filing 35 Order : For the foregoing reasons, the Court declines to adopt the Magistrate Judges findings and conclusions that Petitioner carried his burden of showing he was prejudiced by counsel's failure to properly advise him that he faced sentencing as a career offender. The Court accepts the Magistrate Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendations in all other parts, and adopts them as those of the Court. Accordingly, Petitioner's § 2255 motion is hereby DENIED. (Ordered by Judge Reed C. O'Connor on 7/31/2017) (ndt)
August 28, 2014	Filing 17 ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Court declines to adopt the 16 Magistrate Judges findings and conclusion that Petitioner carried his burden of showing he was prejudiced by counsel's failure to properly advise him that he faced senten cing as a career offender. The Court accepts the Magistrate Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendations in all other parts, and adopts them as those of the Court. Accordingly, the § 2255 motion is DENIED. (Ordered by Judge Reed C O'Connor on 8/28/2014) (tln)

Date Filed

Document Text

July 31, 2017

Filing 35 Order : For the foregoing reasons, the Court declines to adopt the Magistrate Judges findings and conclusions that Petitioner carried his burden of showing he was prejudiced by counsel's failure to properly advise him that he faced sentencing as a career offender. The Court accepts the Magistrate Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendations in all other parts, and adopts them as those of the Court. Accordingly, Petitioner's § 2255 motion is hereby DENIED. (Ordered by Judge Reed C. O'Connor on 7/31/2017) (ndt)

August 28, 2014

Filing 17 ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Court declines to adopt the 16 Magistrate Judges findings and conclusion that Petitioner carried his burden of showing he was prejudiced by counsel's failure to properly advise him that he faced senten cing as a career offender. The Court accepts the Magistrate Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendations in all other parts, and adopts them as those of the Court. Accordingly, the § 2255 motion is DENIED. (Ordered by Judge Reed C O'Connor on 8/28/2014) (tln)

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 Texas Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Scribner II 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:	Timothy Wayne Funnell
Represented By:	Frank L Gatto-DOJ
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: Donald Raymond Scribner II
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?