U.S. v. OBAEI, 05 CR 254. (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20150826b29
Visitors: 3
Filed: Aug. 25, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 25, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MILTON I. SHADUR , Senior District Judge . This Court's June 16, 2015 memorandum opinion and order ("Opinion"), after a careful review of each of the remaining nine grounds that pro se movant Hossein Obaei ("Obaei") had presented in his self-prepared 28 U.S.C 2255 motion, concluded by denying the motion and terminating this action. Three weeks later Obaei filed a self-prepared Motion To Reconsider ("Motion") (Dkt. No. 42) that focused on Ground Four of those nine grounds
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MILTON I. SHADUR , Senior District Judge . This Court's June 16, 2015 memorandum opinion and order ("Opinion"), after a careful review of each of the remaining nine grounds that pro se movant Hossein Obaei ("Obaei") had presented in his self-prepared 28 U.S.C 2255 motion, concluded by denying the motion and terminating this action. Three weeks later Obaei filed a self-prepared Motion To Reconsider ("Motion") (Dkt. No. 42) that focused on Ground Four of those nine grounds,..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge.
This Court's June 16, 2015 memorandum opinion and order ("Opinion"), after a careful review of each of the remaining nine grounds that pro se movant Hossein Obaei ("Obaei") had presented in his self-prepared 28 U.S.C § 2255 motion, concluded by denying the motion and terminating this action. Three weeks later Obaei filed a self-prepared Motion To Reconsider ("Motion") (Dkt. No. 42) that focused on Ground Four of those nine grounds, and that filing was rejected in a brief July 15 memorandum order because "what this Court said in Opinion at 4-5, and what the government's responsive memorandum referred to there had spelled out, are left unimpaired by the Motion." Now, nothing daunted, Obaei has tendered what he has labeled "Renewed Request for Consideration by the Court" (Dkt. No. 44), but it regrettably fares no better than his earlier efforts — and for the same reasons that were set out and referred to in the Opinion. Accordingly his most recent request contained in Dkt. No. 44 is denied as well.
Source: Leagle
