Legal Opinion

United States v. Naranjo

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided June 8, 2015No. Criminal No. 1993-0418Published

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Thomas F. Hogan, Senior United States District Judge

Pending before the Court are Defendant Jose Naranjo’s pro se Motion Under Rule 60(b); Alternatively 59(e) [ECF No. 611] (“Rule 60(b) Motion”) and pro se Motion to Vacate Judgment of Conviction “Writ of Error” Under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), “The All Writs Act” [ECF No. 618] (“Motion to Vacate Judgment of Conviction”). As explained below, this Court finds that Naranjo is not entitled to relief under Rules 60(b) or 59(e) so his Rule 60(b) Motion will be denied. Naranjo’s Motion to Vacate Judgment of Conviction will be…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Slack v. McDanielSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. United States v. AkersDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2007
  3. United States v. Naranjo, JoseCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2001
  4. United States v. TchibassaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011

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

Powered by the Exa API