Schavey v. USA

Schavey v. USA

Petitioner:	Raymond Charles Schavey
Respondent:	USA
Case Number:	2:2017cv00379
Filed:	May 8, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the District of Utah
Office:	Central Office
County:	Washington
Presiding Judge:	Ted Stewart
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
August 15, 2017	Filing 9 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Denying 1 Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody;granting 6 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply ; granting 7 Moti on to Amend/Correct. It is therefore ORDERED that Petitioners Motion for Extension of Time and Motion to Amend of Add Supplement (Docket Nos. 6 and 7) are GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Petitioners Motion Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vac ate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Docket No. 1 in Case No. 2:17-CV-379 TS) is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 8(a) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Cases, an evidentiary hearing is not required. It is further ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Cases, the Court DENIES Petitioner a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 8/15/2017. (jwt)
July 5, 2017	Filing 5 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying without prejudice 4 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 7/5/2017. (eat)

Date Filed

Document Text

August 15, 2017

Filing 9 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Denying 1 Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody;granting 6 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply ; granting 7 Moti on to Amend/Correct. It is therefore ORDERED that Petitioners Motion for Extension of Time and Motion to Amend of Add Supplement (Docket Nos. 6 and 7) are GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Petitioners Motion Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vac ate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Docket No. 1 in Case No. 2:17-CV-379 TS) is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 8(a) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Cases, an evidentiary hearing is not required. It is further ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Cases, the Court DENIES Petitioner a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 8/15/2017. (jwt)

July 5, 2017

Filing 5 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying without prejudice 4 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 7/5/2017. (eat)

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

Search for this case: Schavey 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: Raymond Charles Schavey
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
Represented By:	Matthew L. Bell(Designation Assistant US Attorney)
Represented By:	Adam S. Elggren(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 ]

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?