Legal Opinion

McNeil v. United States

District Court, N.D. Ohio

Decided October 22, 1999No. 4:98 CV 2590 (97 CR 175)PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ECONOMUS, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court upon Petitioner’s pro se Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 To Vacate, Set Aside, Or Correct Sentence By A Person In Federal Custody (Dkt.# 1) filed on November 12, 1998 (hereinafter “Petitioner’s Motion”).

Also before the Court are the following: 1) a document filed by Petitioner on May 10, 1999 (Dkt.# 27) which has been docketed as a motion for default judgment, and 2) Petitioner’s Motion For Default Judgment (Dkt.# 31) filed on August 6, 1999.

For the reasons which .follow, the Court denies Petitioner’s Motion…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Hill v. LockhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Brecht v. AbrahamsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  4. United States v. FradySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  5. Bousley v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. McNeil v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2004
  2. United States v. McNeilCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2001
  3. Rhodes v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API