U.S. v. GILL, 12 C 5832. (2012)
Court: District Court, N.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20120727836
Visitors: 31
Filed: Jul. 26, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 26, 2012
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge. This Court has received a newly-filed timely motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 ("Section 2255"), brought by Dean Anthony Gill ("Gill") to seek relief from the 66-month custodial sentence that this Court imposed on him on July 27, 2011. Its threshold examination of that motion (see Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts ("Section 2255 Rules")) has found the motion difficult to deciphe
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge. This Court has received a newly-filed timely motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 ("Section 2255"), brought by Dean Anthony Gill ("Gill") to seek relief from the 66-month custodial sentence that this Court imposed on him on July 27, 2011. Its threshold examination of that motion (see Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts ("Section 2255 Rules")) has found the motion difficult to decipher..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge.
This Court has received a newly-filed timely motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("Section 2255"), brought by Dean Anthony Gill ("Gill") to seek relief from the 66-month custodial sentence that this Court imposed on him on July 27, 2011. Its threshold examination of that motion (see Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts ("Section 2255 Rules")) has found the motion difficult to decipher, no doubt in large part because English is not Gill's primary language.1
To enable this Court to deal effectively with the motion, it orders government counsel to file an answer on or before September 6, 2012 (see Section 2255 Rule 5(b)). It may also prove to be necessary to involve Gill's defense lawyer in the proceedings, but that can be better determined after the government has filed its answer.
FootNotes
1. In addition, Ex. 1 to the motion, captioned "Plea Agreement Form," is different from both the May 11, 2011 Plea Declaration signed by Gill and his defense counsel and the July 27, 2011 Stipulation signed by Gill, his counsel and the Assistant United States Attorney. Both of the latter documents were part of the record before this Court at the time of sentencing, as Ex. 1 was not. At this point this Court has no way of knowing how Ex. 1 does or does not play a role in the Section 2255 analysis.
Source: Leagle
