Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06373/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06373-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY CRANDALL MINCEY, )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. CV-F-04-6373 REC

(No. CR-F-97-5266 REC) 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S

MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL AND

RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT 

The court hereby denies petitioner’s motions for a new trial

and relief from judgment. Although petitioner asserts that he

expected this court to order the United States to respond to his

motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255 and to set a date for petitioner’s reply, this

court only does so when the court concludes from its initial

review that one or more of the claims asserted in the Section

2255 motion have arguable merit, thereby necessitating a response

from the United States As the court ruled in its Order Denying

Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence

Case 1:04-cv-06373-REC Document 5 Filed 10/21/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

filed on June 3, 2005, petitioner failed to demonstrate that he

is entitled to relief under Section 2255 with regard to any of

the numerous claims asserted by petitioner. Petitioner’s

arguments to the contrary set forth in the instant motion do not

persuade the court that the rulings made in the June 3, 2005

Order are erroneous or contrary to law given the standards

governing preliminary review of a Section 2255 motion and the

standards governing relief under Section 2255.

ACCORDINGLY:

1. Petitioner’s motions for new trial and relief from

judgment are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06373-REC Document 5 Filed 10/21/05 Page 2 of 2