Adams v. USA

Filing 2

ORDER DIRECTING the government to file a response to petitioners motion within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this Order. The government shall, as part of its response, attach all relevant portions of the record. Response due by April 1, 2013. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 3/1/2013. (mtm)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS QUAWNTAY ADAMS, Petitioner, v. Criminal Case No. 04-cr-30029-DRH Civil Case No. 13-cv-170-DRH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM & ORDER HERNDON, Chief Judge: This matter is before the Court on petitioner Quawntay Adams’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1). Petitioner was convicted on charges that he possessed more than 100 kilograms of marijuana with the intent to distribute, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(vii), conspired to commit money laundering, see 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) and (h), and attempted to escape from custody, see 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). On direct appeal, the Seventh Circuit held the evidence did not support the conviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering but otherwise affirmed the judgment of conviction. Instantly, petitioner raises various claims in relation to his conviction, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, which petitioner alleges warrant the relief he seeks. Page 1 of 2 Pursuant to Rule 4 of the RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2255 PROCEEDINGS, the Court ORDERS the government to file a response to petitioner’s motion within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this Order. The government shall, as part of its response, attach all relevant portions of the record. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 1st day of March, 2013. Digitally signed by David R. Herndon Date: 2013.03.01 16:30:37 -06'00' Chief Judge United States District Judge Page 2 of 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?