Legal Opinion

Allen v. United States

District Court, N.D. Ohio

Decided October 21, 1999No. 4:99CV1016; No. 97 CR 206-2Published

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ECONOMUS, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court upon Petitioner’s pro se Motion To Vacate, Set Aside, Or Correct Sentence Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Dkt.# 103) (hereinafter “Petitioner’s Motion”).

Also before the Court are the following: 1) Government’s Response To Defendant’s Habeas Corpus Motion Filed Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“Government’s Response”) and the Government’s Motion To File Response Instanter (“Government’s Motion”) (Dkt.# 102);1 and 2) Petitioner’s Traverse Brief (Dkt.# 105) (“Traverse”).

For the reasons which follow, the Court denies…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Brecht v. AbrahamsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. United States v. FradySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Hill v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  4. Reed v. FarleySupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  5. George C. Watson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1999

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API