Imo v. United States of America

Imo v. United States of America

Petitioner:	Umawa Oke Imo
Respondent:	United States of America
Case Number:	4:2015cv01827
Filed:	May 4, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Office:	Houston Office
County:	Harris
Presiding Judge:	Melinda Harmon
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
November 22, 2017	Filing 18 OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION as to Umawa Oke Imo re: 1 Motion to Vacate (2255), Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Umawa Oke Imo. The Court will hold a limited evidentiary hearing to determ ine whether Imo has met his burden of showing prejudice with respect to his claim that his appellate counsel was ineffective. Imo has not filed a financial affidavit or a Declaration in Support of a Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis as requested b y the Magistrate Judge, so the Court cannot determine whether Imo is eligible for court-appointed counsel. Therefore, the Court assumes Imo wishes to retain his own counsel for the evidentiary hearing. Imos counsel shall enter a notice of appearance with the Court prior to the hearing. It is further ORDERED that Movants Motion to Supplement § 2255 Motion (Doc. 809) is DENIED, The remaining claims in Movants § 2255 Motion (Doc. 751) are denied. Movants Motion to Supplement § 2255 Motion (Doc. 809) is DENIED. ( Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified. (jdav, 4)

Date Filed

Document Text

November 22, 2017

Filing 18 OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION as to Umawa Oke Imo re: 1 Motion to Vacate (2255), Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Umawa Oke Imo. The Court will hold a limited evidentiary hearing to determ ine whether Imo has met his burden of showing prejudice with respect to his claim that his appellate counsel was ineffective. Imo has not filed a financial affidavit or a Declaration in Support of a Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis as requested b y the Magistrate Judge, so the Court cannot determine whether Imo is eligible for court-appointed counsel. Therefore, the Court assumes Imo wishes to retain his own counsel for the evidentiary hearing. Imos counsel shall enter a notice of appearance with the Court prior to the hearing. It is further ORDERED that Movants Motion to Supplement § 2255 Motion (Doc. 809) is DENIED, The remaining claims in Movants § 2255 Motion (Doc. 751) are denied. Movants Motion to Supplement § 2255 Motion (Doc. 809) is DENIED. ( Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified. (jdav, 4)

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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Imo 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 ]
Petitioner: Umawa Oke Imo
Represented By:	R Christopher Goldsmith
Represented By:	Dallas Craig Hughes
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: United States of America
Represented By:	Appellate Division
Represented By:	Jason B Smith
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?