Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

11-042 - USA v. DURHAM et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
11-042 - USA v. DURHAM et al
April 7, 2011
PDF | More
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT TIMOTHY DURHAM'S MOTION TO VACATE. Defendant Timothy Durham's Motion to Vacate asks this Court to vacate Magistrate Judge Foster's order and release Mr. Durham from Volunteers of America ("VOA"). [Dkt. 47 at 2.] See Order re: background and discussion. Magistrate Judge Foster has set a hearing for April 11, 2011 to review the status of Mr. Durham's conditions of release. Therefore, this Court considers the matter to continue to be under advisement with Magistrate Judge Foster and any further review by this Court to be premature. For these reasons, the Court DENIES Mr. Durham's Motion to Vacate Magistrate Judge Foster's Order Regarding Conditions of Release. [Dkt. 47.] Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/7/2011.(LBK)
July 26, 2011
PDF | More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE as to TIMOTHY S. DURHAM - Mr. Durham filed his redacted financial statement and supporting memorandum on July 25, 2011; however, he filed both of those documents under seal with no motion supporting why either of those documents should be maintained under seal. The Court ORDERS Mr. Durham to show cause by July 29, 2011 why the Court should not unseal the redacted financial statement and supporting memorandum. [Dkts. 112; 112-1.] Should he fail to do so, the Court will unseal the documents at issue. Mr. Durham is permitted to file an amended supporting memorandum by that date should he choose to do so. If he believes any portion of the supporting memorandum should be maintained under seal, he is to file a motion requesting leave to file the affected portions under seal with supporting authority and to comply with Local Rule 5.3. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/26/2011.(JD)ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE as to TIMOTHY S. DURHAM - Mr. Durham filed his redacted financial statement and supporting memorandum on July 25, 2011; however, he filed both of those documents under seal with no motion supporting why either of those documents should be maintained under seal. The Court ORDERS Mr. Durham to show cause by July 29, 2011 why the Court should not unseal the redacted financial statement and supporting memorandum. [Dkts. 112; 112-1.] Should he fail to do so, the Court will unseal the documents at issue. Mr. Durham is permitted to file an amended supporting memorandum by that date should he choose to do so. If he believes any portion of the supporting memorandum should be maintained under seal, he is to file a motion requesting leave to file the affected portions under seal with supporting authority and to comply with Local Rule 5.3. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/26/2011.(JD)ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE as to TIMOTHY S. DURHAM - Mr. Durham filed his redacted financial statement and supporting memorandum on July 25, 2011; however, he filed both of those documents under seal with no motion supporting why either of those documents should be maintained under seal. The Court ORDERS Mr. Durham to show cause by July 29, 2011 why the Court should not unseal the redacted financial statement and supporting memorandum. [Dkts. 112; 112-1.] Should he fail to do so, the Court will unseal the documents at issue. Mr. Durham is permitted to file an amended supporting memorandum by that date should he choose to do so. If he believes any portion of the supporting memorandum should be maintained under seal, he is to file a motion requesting leave to file the affected portions under seal with supporting authority and to comply with Local Rule 5.3. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/26/2011.(JD)
April 19, 2012
PDF | More
ORDER denying 143 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as to TIMOTHY S. DURHAM (1) - The Government's evidence establishes that Mr. Durham's suspicion of unauthorized wiretapping was unfounded, and Mr. Durham has introduced no evidence to the contrary. Even if "outrageous government misconduct" existed as a basis to dismiss indictments, that theory would have no application here. Nor does 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) or (b) provide any relief, the Government's conduct here was consistent with-not contrary to-its terms. Accordingly, Mr. Durham's motion to dismiss, [dkt. 143], is DENIED. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/19/2012. (JKS)
April 26, 2012
PDF | More
ORDER denying 167 Defendant Durham's Motion to Suppress - Mr. Durham's Motion to Suppress Wiretap and Derivative Evidence for Lack of Necessity, dkt. 167, joined in part by Mr. Snow and Mr. Cochran, is DENIED. (***SEE ORDER***). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/26/2012.(JKS)ORDER denying 167 Defendant Durham's Motion to Suppress - Mr. Durham's Motion to Suppress Wiretap and Derivative Evidence for Lack of Necessity, dkt. 167, joined in part by Mr. Snow and Mr. Cochran, is DENIED. (***SEE ORDER***). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/26/2012.(JKS)ORDER denying 167 Defendant Durham's Motion to Suppress - Mr. Durham's Motion to Suppress Wiretap and Derivative Evidence for Lack of Necessity, dkt. 167, joined in part by Mr. Snow and Mr. Cochran, is DENIED. (***SEE ORDER***). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/26/2012.(JKS)
May 9, 2012
PDF | More
ORDER denying 152 Defendant Durham's Motion to Suppress - Mr. Durham's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained During and as a Result of the Obsidian and Fair Finance Searches, dkt. 152, joined in part by Mr. Cochran and Mr. Snow, is DENIED. **SEE ORDER**. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/9/2012. (JKS)ORDER denying 152 Defendant Durham's Motion to Suppress - Mr. Durham's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained During and as a Result of the Obsidian and Fair Finance Searches, dkt. 152, joined in part by Mr. Cochran and Mr. Snow, is DENIED. **SEE ORDER**. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/9/2012. (JKS)ORDER denying 152 Defendant Durham's Motion to Suppress - Mr. Durham's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained During and as a Result of the Obsidian and Fair Finance Searches, dkt. 152, joined in part by Mr. Cochran and Mr. Snow, is DENIED. **SEE ORDER**. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/9/2012. (JKS)
May 16, 2012
PDF | More
ORDER denying 175 Motion to Suppress as to TIMOTHY S. DURHAM (1) - Presently before the Court is Defendant Timothy S. Durham's Motion to Suppress Wiretap and Derivative Evidence from Failure to Minimize Calls and Because the Wiretap Was Sought for a Non-Predicate Offense. [Dkt. 175.] Neither of Mr. Durham's Co-Defendants has joined in the motion. Mr. Durham's motion, [dkt. 175], is DENIED. (**SEE ORDER**) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/16/2012. (JKS)ORDER denying 175 Motion to Suppress as to TIMOTHY S. DURHAM (1) - Presently before the Court is Defendant Timothy S. Durham's Motion to Suppress Wiretap and Derivative Evidence from Failure to Minimize Calls and Because the Wiretap Was Sought for a Non-Predicate Offense. [Dkt. 175.] Neither of Mr. Durham's Co-Defendants has joined in the motion. Mr. Durham's motion, [dkt. 175], is DENIED. (**SEE ORDER**) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/16/2012. (JKS)ORDER denying 175 Motion to Suppress as to TIMOTHY S. DURHAM (1) - Presently before the Court is Defendant Timothy S. Durham's Motion to Suppress Wiretap and Derivative Evidence from Failure to Minimize Calls and Because the Wiretap Was Sought for a Non-Predicate Offense. [Dkt. 175.] Neither of Mr. Durham's Co-Defendants has joined in the motion. Mr. Durham's motion, [dkt. 175], is DENIED. (**SEE ORDER**) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/16/2012. (JKS)
March 21, 2018
PDF | More
Entry Denying Motion for Relief Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and Denying Certificate of Appealability - For the reasons explained in this Entry, the motion of Rick D. Snow for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 must be denied and the action dismissed with prejudice. In addition, the Court finds that a certificate of appealability should not issue. The foregoing shows that Mr. Snow is not entitled to relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. His motion for relief pursuant to § 2255 is therefore DENIED. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the Court finds that Mr. Snow has failed to show that reasonable jurists would find it "debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Court therefore DENIES a certificate of appealability. (See Entry). Copy to Defendant via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/21/2018.(APD)
May 16, 2018
PDF | More
Order Denying Motion for Relief Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and Denying a Certificate of Appealability - For the reasons discussed in this Order, the motion of James F. Cochran for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 must be denied and the action dismissed with prejudice. In addition, the Court finds that a certificate of appealability should not issue. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Mr. Cochran is not entitled to relief on his § 2255 motion. There was no ineffective assistance of counsel, no errors in the sentencing proceedings or calculations, and no judicial misconduct. Accordingly, his motion for relief pursuant to § 2255 is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue and a copy of this Entry shall be docketed in No. 1:11-cr-00042-JMS-DML-2. (SEE ENTRY). Copy to Defendant via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/16/2018.(APD)