Legal Opinion
United States v. Neal
District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Decided September 26, 1991No. CR-80-04-DPublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
*1574ORDER
DAUGHERTY, Senior District Judge.
The Movant in this case has filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion pro se attacking the validity of his convictions in the above case *1575in 1980. The Government has responded and the Movant has replied thereto. The matter was referred to a Magistrate Judge for initial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The Magistrate Judge found an evidentiary hearing to be unnecessary and that the issues raised by the Movant could be resolved on the basis of the record.
The Magistrate Judge filed a Report And Recommendation concerning the Movant’s § 2255 Motion on…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Cuyler v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Wood v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- United States v. Millard BowieCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1990
- United States of America, Plaintif-Appellee v. Biagio Cirrincione and Tom CirrincioneCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- United States v. SappDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1997