green
Positive treatment
Hot · 43 in 5y
Quoted verbatim 5×
67.4 score
“a 2255 movant procedurally defaults his 22 claims by not raising them on direct appeal and not showing cause and prejudice or actual 23 innocence in response to the default.”
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Maurice Xavier Hollins v. United States of America
a 2255 movant procedurally defaults his 22 claims by not raising them on direct appeal and not showing cause and prejudice or actual 23 innocence in response to the default.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
VanDyck v. United States
a 28 2255 movant procedurally defaults his claims by not raising them on direct appeal and 1 not showing cause and prejudice or actual innocence in response to the default.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Contreras-Ramirez v. United States
a 2255 movant procedurally defaults his claims by not raising them 20 on direct appeal and not showing cause and prejudice or actual innocence in 21 response to the default.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Nathaniel Wells
ourts have consistently determined that the jurisdictional element of federal crimes does not present a pure question of the court's subject-matter jurisdiction.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Abell v. United States
he claim may be raised in 7 habeas only if the defendant can first demonstrate either 'cause' and actual 'prejudice,' or that 8 he is 'actually innocent.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Knight v. United States
(See id. at 31- 24 35.) 25 /// 26 27 4The procedural default rule precludes a petitioner from raising a claim on collateral review if that claim was not raised on direct appeal unless the petitioner can show “cause 28 and prejudice” or actual innocence in response to the default.” United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 962 (9th Cir. 2003). 2 assistance of counsel, asserting the following primary arguments: (1) counsel allowed 3 convictions of consecutive Section 924(c) counts for Knights “simultaneously committing 4 two predicate offenses”; (2) counsel failed to suppress warrantless…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Alston v. United States
United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 962 (9th Cir. 2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Daniel Draper
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 , district courts have subject matter jurisdiction “[i]n every federal criminal prosecution.” United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 962 (9th Cir. 2003); see United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 , 630–31 (2002) (“[A] district court ‘has jurisdiction of all crimes cognizable under the authority of the United States . . . .’” (quoting Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60, 65 (1916))).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Herbert Johnson
United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir. 2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Anthony Schneider
United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir. 2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jacorey Taylor
United States v. Swisher, 811 F.3d 299, 306 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc); United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir. 2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Randy Haas
We review de novo the district court’s denial of habeas relief, United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir. 2003), and we may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 823 (9th Cir. 1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Mongol Nation
As a threshold matter, “[i]n every federal criminal prosecution, subject- matter jurisdiction is conferred by 18 U.S.C. § 3231 .” United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 962 (9th Cir. 2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Oscar Hernandez-Lopez
We review a district court’s denial of relief to a federal prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 de novo, United States v. Swisher, 811 F.3d 299, 306 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), and we also apply de novo review to findings as to whether there has been a procedural default, United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir. 2003). 1.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Curtis Fauber v. Ronald Davis
United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 965 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that “[i]n order to excuse his procedural default, [petitioner] must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense”) (quotations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Franklin III v. United States
United 12 States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 962 (9th Cir. 2003). 13 The Government contends that the claim of ineffective assistance of appellate 14 counsel for failure to raise the issue of the waiver of consent to the indictment by trial 15 counsel is procedurally defaulted since it should have been raised on direct appeal.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Dana Canfield
Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir. 2003), we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Earl Joseph
Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir. 2003), we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Foreman v. United States
“A § 2255 movant procedurally defaults his claims by not raising 12 them on direct appeal and not showing cause and prejudice or actual innocence in response 13 to the default.” United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 962 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations 14 omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kenneth Floyd Prutting v. Felipe Martinez
The Government cited Mathis in its 24 opposition to Petitioner’s section 2255 motion (see “United States’ 25 26 7 “A § 2255 movant procedurally defaults his claims by not raising them on direct appeal and not showing cause and 27 prejudice or actual innocence in response to the default.” 28 United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 962 (9th Cir. 2003), 1 Response in Opposition to Prutting’s Motion to Vacate, etc.,” filed 2 September 12, 2016 in Prutting v. United States, United States 3 District Court for the Middle District of Florida case number 8:16-cv- 4 01673, at pp. 14-15).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Westman v. United States
A § 2255 claimant procedurally defaults his claims by not raising them “on direct appeal and not showing cause and prejudice or actual innocence in response to the default.” United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 962 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 622 (1998); Medrano v. United States, 315 F.2d 361, 361-62 (9th Cir. 1963) (finding petitioner’s challenge of evidentiary sufficiency for jurisdictional fact of drug possession in federal narcotics conviction was procedurally defaulted)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Christopher v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 964 (9th Cir. 2003).3 In addition, as the government further points out, in pleading guilty, Christopher also agreed to waive, not only his right to appeal, but also his right to collaterally attack his conviction or sentence, except for instances of ineffective assistance of counsel or if the Court imposed a sentence greater than the applicable 3Another exception is demonstrating actual innocence, see Ratigan, 351 F.3d at 964 , something which Christopher’s Section 2255 motion does not attempt to do. guideline range, see Dkt.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. William Ferguson
“Determinations of whether there has been a procedural default are also reviewed de novo.” United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir. 2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Aragon v. United States
“Where a defendant has procedurally defaulted a claim by failing to 17 raise it on direct review, the claim may be raised in habeas only if the defendant can first 18 demonstrate either [1] ‘cause’ and actual ‘prejudice,’ or that [2] he is ‘actually 19 innocent.’” Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 622 (1998) (internal citations 20 omitted); United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 962 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that “[a] 21 Section 2255 movant procedurally defaults his claims by not raising them on direct 22 appeal and not showing cause and prejudice or actual innocence in…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gallaher v. United States
United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 962 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 853 (2004) (citing Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 622 (1988)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gallaher v. United States
United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 962 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 853 (2004) (citing Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 622 (1988)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mickey v. United States
(ECF No. 148; see also ECF No. 157 (Defendant’s reply).) 28 1 to seek relevant discovery materials, including any Brady materials or grand jury 2 transcripts, (ECF No. 145, at 16-19), are conclusively contradicted by the record. 3 (See ECF No. 29 (co-defendant’s first motion to compel discovery); ECF No. 34 4 (Defendant’s notice of joinder to first motion); ECF No. 48 (co-defendant’s second 5 motion to compel); ECF No. 53 (Defendandt’s notice of joinder to second motion); 6 see also ECF No. 35 (Government’s response to first motion); ECF No. 49 7 (Government’s response to second …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fernandez-Perez v. United States
Petitioner’s Motion is Barred due to Procedural Default 16 “The general rule in federal habeas cases is that a defendant who fails to raise a claim 17 lon direct appeal is barred from raising the claim on collateral review.” Sanchez-Llamas v, 18 }| Oregon, 548 USS. 33 1, 350-51 (2006); see also United States v. Frady, 456 US. 152, 168 19 (1982) (providing that a collateral challenge is not a substitute for an appeal); Sunal v. 20 || Large, 332 U.S. 174 , 178 (1947) (“So far as convictions obtained in the federal courts are |;concerned, the. general rule is that the writ of habeas corpu…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cruz-Venegas v. United States
“Where a defendant has procedurally defaulted a 10 ||claim by failing to raise it on direct review, the claim may be raised in habeas only if the 11 |\defendant can first demonstrate either [1] ‘cause’ and actual ‘prejudice,’ or that [2] he is 12 || ‘actually innocent.’” Bousley v. United States, 523 U:S. 614, 622 (1998) (internal citations 13 omitted); see also Sanchez-Llamas, 548 U.S. at 350-51 (same); United States v. Ratigan, 14 || 351 F.3d 957, 962 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that “[a] § 2255 movant procedurally defaults 15 ||his claims by not raising them on direct appeal…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Castro v. United States
“Where a defendant has procedurally defaulted a 20 claim by failing to raise it on direct review, the claim may be raised in habeas only if the 21 defendant can first demonstrate either [1] ‘cause’ and actual ‘prejudice,’ or that [2] he is 22 ‘actually innocent.’” Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 622 (1998) (internal citations 23 omitted); see also Sanchez-Llamas, 548 U.S. at 350-51 (same); United States v. Ratigan, 24 351 F.3d 957, 962 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that “[a] § 2255 movant procedurally defaults 25 his claims by not raising them on direct appeal and not sho…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Taquan Rashe Gullett-El v. United States
(5×)
also: Cited "see"
See United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 154 , 162, 164-65 (1982); United States v. 17 Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 962 (9th Cir. 2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fernando Luviano v. United States
Honorable Dale S. Fischer UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 A defendant moving pursuant to § 2255 “procedurally defaults his claims by not raising them on direct appeal and not showing cause and prejudice or actual innocence in response to the default.” United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 962 (9th Cir. 2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bell v. United States
However, the rule does not apply in one of two circumstances: (1) where the 8 defendant can show “cause and prejudice”; or (2) the defendant can show “actual innocence.” 9 Massaro, 538 U.S. at 504 ; United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 962 (9th Cir. 2003). 10 To show cause, a defendant must demonstrate “that some objective factor external to the 11 defense impeded his efforts to raise the barred claim,” and those factors include a showing that the 12 basis for the claim was unavailable to counsel.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wade v. United States
A defendant can only overcome that bar if he shows cause and prejudice for his 7 procedural default or “actual innocence.” United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 960 (9th Cir. 8 2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mathews v. United States
Movant’s Motion is Not Procedurally Barred 5 The government additionally argues that, regardless of whether his motion is timely, 6 || Movant defaulted his Johnson-based claim by failing to appeal the Court’s jury instruction 7 \|that violation of § 844(i) was a “crime of violence” within the definition of § 924(c). 8 || Indeed, “[t]he general rule in federal habeas cases is that a defendant who fails to raise a 9 ||claim on direct appeal is barred from raising it on collateral review.” United States v. 10 || Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 962 (9th Cir. 2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Seng Yong
STANDARD OF REVIEW We review a district court’s denial of a § 2255 motion de novo, United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Benboe, 157 F.3d 1181, 1183 (9th Cir. 1998)), while we review for clear error any factual findings the district court made in deciding the motion, United States v. Christakis, 238 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Tara Mazzeo
Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Benboe, 157 F.3d 1181, 1183 (9th Cir. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 1998)), we hold that the district court did not err when it found that Mazzeo failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Carpio v. United States
(See Pet.; Answer at 10-14); United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 962 (9th Cir. 2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Garcia
A. Procedural Default “The general rule in federal ha-beas cases is that a defendant who fails to raise a claim on direct appeal is barred from raising the claim on collateral review.” Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331, 350-51 , 126 S.Ct. 2669 , 165 L.Ed.2d 557 (2006); United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 962 (9th Cir.2003) (“A § 2255 movant procedurally defaults his claims by not raising them on direct appeal and not showing cause and prejudice or actual innocence in response to the default.”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gentry
United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 962 (9th Cir.2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Dean
United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 962 (9th Cir.2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Denetria Myles
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
While a bank’s federally insured status provides the jurisdictional nexus for the statute, '“any challenge claiming that the government failed to prove at trial that essential element does not thereby undermine the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, or its power to hear the case.” United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 964 (9th Cir.2003); accord United States v. Carr, 271 F.3d 172, 178 (4th Cir.2001) (holding that whether jurisdictional element of criminal offense is “demonstrated in an individual circumstance does not affect a court’s constitutional or statutory power to adjudi…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. J. Reves
United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir.2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Canez v. Ryan
To demonstrate actual innocence under Schlup , a petitioner must “show actual, factual innocence, not just legal insufficiency of the evidence.” United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 965 (9th Cir.2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jackson v. United States
See, United States v. Gaither, 300 Fed.Appx. 612, 614-15 (10th Cir.2008) (claim of prosecutorial misconduct procedurally barred where raised for the first time in § 2255 motion); DiPietro v. United States, 251 Fed.Appx. 606 (11th Cir.2007), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 128 S.Ct. 2094 , 170 L.Ed.2d 826 (2008); United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 965 (9th Cir.2003) (procedural default cannot be excused unless showing of actual, factual innocence, not just legal insufficiency).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hageman v. Hill
To demonstrate actual innocence under Schlup , a petitioner must “show actual, factual innocence, not just legal insufficiency of the evidence.” United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 965 (9th Cir.2003) (emphasis added); see also Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623-24 , 118 S.Ct. 1604 , 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hageman v. Hill
To demonstrate actual innocence under Schlup , a petitioner must “show actual, factual innocence, not just legal insufficiency of the evidence.” United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 965 (9th Cir.2003) (emphasis added); see also Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623-24 , 118 S.Ct. 1604 , 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jon Raymond Ware
United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir.2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Espinoza-Lopez v. United States
We review the district court’s denial of a § 2255 motion de novo, see United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir.2003), and we conclude that counsel’s performance in all these respects was reasonable.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Robert Vaio Wells
(2×)
United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir.2003).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
M.L., a Minor C.D. And S.L., His Parents
v.
Federal Way School District Washington Superintendent of Public Instruction
v.
Federal Way School District Washington Superintendent of Public Instruction
02-35547.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Dec 10, 2003.
Published
M.L., a minor; C.D. and S.L., his parents, Petitioners-Appellants,
v.
FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT; Washington Superintendent of Public Instruction, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 02-35547.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Filed December 10, 2003.
James E. Lobsenz, Esq., Carney Badley Smith & Spellman, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Petitioners-Appellants.
Christopher L. Hirst, Preston Gates & Ellis LLP, James J. Dionne, Esq., Dionne & Rorick, Seattle, WA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: Arthur L. ALARCÓN, Ronald M. GOULD, and Richard R. CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
1
The court's September 2, 2003 opinion in this matter is WITHDRAWN.