Long v. United States

E.D. Missouri

Long v. United States

DecidedJuly 2, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-00281

StatusUnknown

This text of Long v. United States (Long v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Long v. United States, (E.D. Mo. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

MARIO LONG, ) ) Movant, ) ) v. ) No. 4:25-cv-00281 SEP ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is Movant Mario Long’s Motion for Evidentiary Hearing and Memorandum in Support. Docs. [4], [6]. Long was sentenced by this Court on January 30, 2024, to 120 months imprisonment for one charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm. See United States v. Long, No. 4:20-CR-486 RLW (E.D. Mo.). For the reasons set forth below, his Motion for Evidentiary Hearing will be denied without prejudice. Long seeks to present evidence of trial counsel’s ineffective assistance of counsel, the alleged violation of his Sixth Amendment rights, and prosecutorial misconduct. Doc. [6] at 2, 6. Long also seeks an evidentiary hearing regarding alleged violation of his rights under the Speedy Trial Act. Doc. [7] at 6. Long’s motion for an evidentiary hearing is premature. A movant “is entitled to an evidentiary hearing [on a section 2255 motion] . . . unless ‘the motion and the files and the records of the case conclusively show that [he] is entitled to no relief.’” Witthar v. United States, 793 F.3d 920, 922 (8th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b)). The Court may dismiss a claim “without an evidentiary hearing if the claim is inadequate on its face or if the record affirmatively refutes the factual assertions upon which it is based.” Shaw v. United States, 24 F.3d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir. 1994) (citing Larson v. United States, 905 F.2d 218, 220-21 (8th Cir. 1990)). It is too early in Long’s § 2255 proceeding for the Court to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary, as Respondent has not yet answered the Amended Motion to Vacate, and all the pertinent files and records are not yet before the Court. The Court has had no opportunity to assess whether the facts alleged by Long entitle him to relief. Thus, the Court will deny Long’s motion at this time. After recetving Respondent’s brief—which is due no later than 45 days from the date of the Case Management Order issued this same date—the Court will determine whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Movant’s Motion for Evidentiary Hearing, Doc. [4], is DENIED without prejudice. A Case Management Order will be issued separately in this matter.

Dated this 2° day of July, 2025. . / SARAHE. PITLYK — UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

MARIO LONG, ) ) Movant, ) ) v. ) No. 4:25-cv-00281 SEP ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is Movant Mario Long’s Motion for Evidentiary Hearing and Memorandum in Support. Docs. [4], [6]. Long was sentenced by this Court on January 30, 2024, to 120 months imprisonment for one charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm. See United States v. Long, No. 4:20-CR-486 RLW (E.D. Mo.). For the reasons set forth below, his Motion for Evidentiary Hearing will be denied without prejudice. Long seeks to present evidence of trial counsel’s ineffective assistance of counsel, the alleged violation of his Sixth Amendment rights, and prosecutorial misconduct. Doc. [6] at 2, 6. Long also seeks an evidentiary hearing regarding alleged violation of his rights under the Speedy Trial Act. Doc. [7] at 6. Long’s motion for an evidentiary hearing is premature. A movant “is entitled to an evidentiary hearing [on a section 2255 motion] . . . unless ‘the motion and the files and the records of the case conclusively show that [he] is entitled to no relief.’” Witthar v. United States, 793 F.3d 920, 922 (8th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b)). The Court may dismiss a claim “without an evidentiary hearing if the claim is inadequate on its face or if the record affirmatively refutes the factual assertions upon which it is based.” Shaw v. United States, 24 F.3d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir. 1994) (citing Larson v. United States, 905 F.2d 218, 220-21 (8th Cir. 1990)). It is too early in Long’s § 2255 proceeding for the Court to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary, as Respondent has not yet answered the Amended Motion to Vacate, and all the pertinent files and records are not yet before the Court. The Court has had no opportunity to assess whether the facts alleged by Long entitle him to relief. Thus, the Court will deny Long’s motion at this time. After recetving Respondent’s brief—which is due no later than 45 days from the date of the Case Management Order issued this same date—the Court will determine whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Movant’s Motion for Evidentiary Hearing, Doc. [4], is DENIED without prejudice. A Case Management Order will be issued separately in this matter.

Dated this 2° day of July, 2025. . / SARAHE. PITLYK — UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Long v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/long-v-united-states-moed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack