USA v. Quadale Coleman, No. 12-2621 (7th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 14, 2014.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 October 16, 2014 Before MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge ROBERT M. DOW, JR., District Judge* Nos. 12 2621, 12 2762 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellant, v. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin No. 3:07 cr 00080 wmc 1 QUADALE D. COLEMAN, William M. Conley, Chief Judge. Defendant Appellee. ______________________________________ QUADALE D. COLEMAN, Petitioner Appellee, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin No. 3:10 cv 00736 wmc William M. Conely, Chief Judge. O R D E R No judge of the court having called for a vote on the Petition For Rehearing and  *  The Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr., of the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation. Appeal nos. 12 2621, 12 2762 Page 2 Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc filed by Defendant Petitioner Appellee on  September 29, 2014, and all of the judges on the original panel having voted to deny the same,   IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition For Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the opinion issued in the above entitled case on August 14, 2014, is hereby amended as follows: The last sentence in the opinion is revised so that it reads:  Based on our decision in Hawkins, the decision of the district court in No. 12 2621 resentencing Coleman is VACATED, the decision in No. 12 2762 granting the § 2255 motion is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including consideration of any remaining issues presented in the § 2255 motion.  

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.