Legal Opinion
Mickens v. United States
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided August 25, 2004No. CV-97-2122PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PLATT, District Judge.
Petitioner Thomas Mickens moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 for relief from his conviction and sentence. For the following reasons, Mickens is GRANTED an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Rule 60.
Background
As this Court stated in an earlier proceeding, “Mickens orchestrated a profitable cocaine distribution network in Queens, New York over a five-year period,” an activity that allowed him to engage “in a lifestyle of extravagant spending.” Mickens v. United States, 53 F.Supp.2d 326, 329 (E.D.N.Y.1999). In 1989, a jury found Mickens guilty…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Roy William Harris v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2004
- Johney Pham v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2003
- Oscar Boria v. John Keane, Superintendent, Sing Sing Correctional FacilityCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1996
- United States of America, Cross-Appellant v. Thomas Mickens, Anthony Jacobs, Shelby Kearney, Bettina Jacobs Celifie, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Diaz v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2020