U.S. v. HAMDAN, 07-32. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Number: infdco20140702a20
Visitors: 15
Filed: Jun. 30, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 30, 2014
Summary: ORDER IVAN L.R. LEMELLE, District Judge. Considering Defendant's Motion to Vacate (Rec. Doc. No. 52), IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED. The Court previously denied Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to file a Motion to Vacate on May 1, 2014, stating "[e]ven accepting Hamdan's representations in his request, his motion to vacate is untimely given the one-year time limitation contained in 28 U.S.C. 2255(1)." (Rec. Doc. No. 51). The Court repeats that finding here, and accordi
Summary: ORDER IVAN L.R. LEMELLE, District Judge. Considering Defendant's Motion to Vacate (Rec. Doc. No. 52), IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED. The Court previously denied Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to file a Motion to Vacate on May 1, 2014, stating "[e]ven accepting Hamdan's representations in his request, his motion to vacate is untimely given the one-year time limitation contained in 28 U.S.C. 2255(1)." (Rec. Doc. No. 51). The Court repeats that finding here, and accordin..
More
ORDER
IVAN L.R. LEMELLE, District Judge.
Considering Defendant's Motion to Vacate (Rec. Doc. No. 52),
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED. The Court previously denied Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to file a Motion to Vacate on May 1, 2014, stating "[e]ven accepting Hamdan's representations in his request, his motion to vacate is untimely given the one-year time limitation contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(1)." (Rec. Doc. No. 51). The Court repeats that finding here, and accordingly denies Defendant's Motion to Vacate as untimely.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the response order issued on June 26, 2014 (Rec. Doc. No. 53) is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
Source: Leagle
