Richardson v. USA

Richardson v. USA

Petitioner:	Robert Isadore Richardson
Respondent:	USA
Case Number:	3:2007cv00093
Filed:	July 27, 2007
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
Office:	Martinsburg Office
County:	Berkeley
Presiding Judge:	John P. Bailey
Nature of Suit:	Prisoner: Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate 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
April 30, 2009	Filing 15 ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONERS OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: re adopting 141 Report and Recommendations - the original judgment should be vacated and that petitioner should be resentenced; granting in part 103 Motion to Vacate (2255) as to Robert Isadore Richardson's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel with regard to counsel's failure to file an appeal on behalf of petitioner. A separate order setting the date and time of petitioner's resentencing will follow. Signed by Chief Judge John Preston Bailey on 4/30/2009. Copy to pro se Petitioner by certified mail, return receipt.(cmd)
March 16, 2009	Filing 13 ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Motion is denied in part as to all claims except petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Signed by Chief Judge John Preston Bailey on 3/16/09. (Copy to pro se petitioner via certified/return receipt mail)(jko) Modified on 3/25/2009-corrected summary of order (jko).

Date Filed

Document Text

April 30, 2009

Filing 15 ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONERS OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: re adopting 141 Report and Recommendations - the original judgment should be vacated and that petitioner should be resentenced; granting in part 103 Motion to Vacate (2255) as to Robert Isadore Richardson's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel with regard to counsel's failure to file an appeal on behalf of petitioner. A separate order setting the date and time of petitioner's resentencing will follow. Signed by Chief Judge John Preston Bailey on 4/30/2009. Copy to pro se Petitioner by certified mail, return receipt.(cmd)

March 16, 2009

Filing 13 ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Motion is denied in part as to all claims except petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Signed by Chief Judge John Preston Bailey on 3/16/09. (Copy to pro se petitioner via certified/return receipt mail)(jko) Modified on 3/25/2009-corrected summary of order (jko).

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 West Virginia Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Richardson 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
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 Isadore Richardson
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?