Thomas v. Eastern District of Wisconsin

E.D. Virginia

Thomas v. Eastern District of Wisconsin

DecidedFebruary 26, 2020

Docket3:20-cv-00110

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Thomas v. Eastern District of Wisconsin, (E.D. Va. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division ANTONIO THOMAS, ) ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 3:20CV110-HEH UNITED STATES, . Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION (Denying § 2255 Motion) Antonio Thomas, a federal prisoner currently incarcerated in FCI Petersburg, was convicted and sentenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on June 22, 2018. See United States v. Thomas, No. 2:17CR57—PP-1 (E.D. Wis. 2018). On February 19, 2020, the Court received from Thomas a portion of a sheet of paper titled, “Petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus under 28. U.S.C. § 2255,” in which he attacks his conviction for “Hobbs act armed robbery and 924(c).” (ECF No. 1.) A motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provides the primary means of collateral attack on the imposition of a federal conviction and sentence. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Cox v. Warden, Fed. Det. Ctr.,911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (Sth Cir. 1990)). Thomas must file a § 2255 motion in the court where he was convicted and sentenced. Accordingly, Thomas’s § 2255 motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is DIRECTED to forward to Thomas the form for filing a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Any § 2255 motion that Thomas files must conform to the rules

governing such motions and be sworn to under the penalty of perjury. See Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings for the U.S. District Courts, Rule 2(b). Thomas is also advised that § 2255 motions are subject to a one-year statute of limitations and a restriction against second or successive petitions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f), (h). If Thomas desires to file a § 2255 motion at this time, he should complete the form and send it to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. An appropriate Order shall issue. ‘sf HENRY E. HUDSON Date: Feh 26,2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Richmond, Virginia

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division ANTONIO THOMAS, ) ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 3:20CV110-HEH UNITED STATES, . Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION (Denying § 2255 Motion) Antonio Thomas, a federal prisoner currently incarcerated in FCI Petersburg, was convicted and sentenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on June 22, 2018. See United States v. Thomas, No. 2:17CR57—PP-1 (E.D. Wis. 2018). On February 19, 2020, the Court received from Thomas a portion of a sheet of paper titled, “Petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus under 28. U.S.C. § 2255,” in which he attacks his conviction for “Hobbs act armed robbery and 924(c).” (ECF No. 1.) A motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provides the primary means of collateral attack on the imposition of a federal conviction and sentence. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Cox v. Warden, Fed. Det. Ctr.,911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (Sth Cir. 1990)). Thomas must file a § 2255 motion in the court where he was convicted and sentenced. Accordingly, Thomas’s § 2255 motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is DIRECTED to forward to Thomas the form for filing a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Any § 2255 motion that Thomas files must conform to the rules

governing such motions and be sworn to under the penalty of perjury. See Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings for the U.S. District Courts, Rule 2(b). Thomas is also advised that § 2255 motions are subject to a one-year statute of limitations and a restriction against second or successive petitions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f), (h). If Thomas desires to file a § 2255 motion at this time, he should complete the form and send it to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. An appropriate Order shall issue. ‘sf HENRY E. HUDSON Date: Feh 26,2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Richmond, Virginia

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Thomas v. Eastern District of Wisconsin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-eastern-district-of-wisconsin-vaed-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack