Corpus: 543,223 opinions · 3,177 judges · newest 2026-06-23 · expanding Coverage ↗
Opinion

govinfo:USCOURTS-paed-2_11-cr-00440-9

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2025-03-04

· GavelSight synced 2026-09-06 03:45:29

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 v. 
JOSEPH MEEHAN, 
 
 
 
 CRIMINAL ACTION 
 NO. 11-440-01 
 
 
ORDER 
 AND NOW, this 4th day of March 2025, upon consideration of Petitioner Joseph Meehan’s 
pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. No. 
360), Petitioner’s Federal Community Defenders Suppl emental Motion to Correct Sentence 
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. No. 364), the Government’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion 
(Doc. No. 405), Petitioner’s Federal Community Defenders Motion to Stay 28 U.S.C. § 2255 
Proceedings (Doc. No. 409), Petitioner’s Reply Brief to Government’s § 2255 Response (Doc. No. 
412), Petitioner’s Supplemental Reply Brief (Doc. No. 417), and in accordance with the Opinion 
of the Court issued this day, it is ORDERED as follows: 
1. Petitioner’s Motion to Stay 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Proceedings filed by the Federal 
Community Defender Officer (Doc. No. 409) is DENIED. 
2. Petitioner’s pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 
U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. No. 360) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 
3. Petitioner’s Supplemental Motion to Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed 
by the Federal Community Defender Office (Doc. No. 364) is GRANTED in part. 

 
4. In accordance with the Opinion of the Court issued this day, Petitioner will be re-sentenced 
in this case on a date to be set by the Court. 
5. A Certificate of Appealability SHALL NOT issue as to Claims Two through Twelve in 
Petitioner’s pro se habeas corpus petition because, for the reasons stated in the Opinion of 
the Court issued this day, Petitioner has failed to “demonstrate that reasonable jurists would 
find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack 
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 
 
 
 BY THE COURT: 
 /s/ Joel H. Slomsky___ 
 JOEL H. SLOMSKY, J. 
 

Passage view · GavelSight