green
Positive treatment
33.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 34 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC)Vera Martinez v. Warden, FCI-Mendota
Therefore, he has failed to demonstrate that he has not had an unobstructed procedural 20 opportunity to present his claims. 21 Petitioner has also failed to demonstrate that his claims qualify under the savings clause of 22 Section 2255 because his claims are not proper claims of “actual innocence.” In the Ninth Circuit, a 23 claim of actual innocence for purposes of the Section 2255 savings clause is tested by the standard 24 articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998). 25 Stephens, 464 U.S. at 898.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Nelson v. Trate
Petitioner has not shown that he was 3 precluded from presenting these claims in his prior motions, and therefore, he has failed to 4 demonstrate that he has not had an unobstructed procedural opportunity to present his claims. 5 Petitioner has also failed to demonstrate that his claims qualify under the savings clause of 6 Section 2255 because his claims are not proper claims of “actual innocence.” In the Ninth Circuit, a 7 claim of actual innocence for purposes of the Section 2255 savings clause is tested by the standard 8 articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Bousley v. Unit…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Marquez-Huazo v. Warden of FCI-Herlong
Stephens, 464 U.S. at 898.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Nelson v. Ciolli
Petitioner has not shown that he was precluded from presenting these claims in his prior 18 motions, and therefore, he has failed to demonstrate that he has not had an unobstructed procedural 19 opportunity to present his claims. 20 Petitioner has also failed to demonstrate that his claims qualify under the savings clause of 21 Section 2255 because his claims are not proper claims of “actual innocence.” In the Ninth Circuit, a 22 claim of actual innocence for purposes of the Section 2255 savings clause is tested by the standard 23 articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Bousley v…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Nelson v. Lake
Petitioner has not 3 shown that he was precluded from presenting these claims in his prior motions, and therefore, he has 4 failed to demonstrate that he has not had an unobstructed procedural opportunity to present his claims. 5 In addition, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that his claims qualify under the savings clause 6 of Section 2255 because his claims are not proper claims of “actual innocence.” In the Ninth Circuit, a 7 claim of actual innocence for purposes of the Section 2255 savings clause is tested by the standard 8 articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Bousley…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Leavitt
See United States v. Bovain, 708 F.2d 606, 608 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 898 , 104 S.Ct. 251 , 78 L.Ed.2d 238 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Leavitt
See United States v. Bovain, 708 F.2d 606, 608 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 898 , 104 S.Ct. 251 , 78 L.Ed.2d 238 (1983).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Billings
See also Commonwealth v. Billups, 13 Mass. App. Ct. 963, 964 (1982), cert, denied, 464 U.S. 898 (1983).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Demetrio J. Hernandez and Wayne Parrish
See, e.g., United States v. Bovain, 708 F.2d 606, 610 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 898 , 104 S.Ct. 251 , 78 L.Ed.2d 238 (1983).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Harris
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 83-5285.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 11, 1983.
Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.