green
Positive treatment
6.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Colón-Díaz v. United States
See Oliver v. U.S., 961 F.2d 1339 (7th Cir.1992), cert. denied 506 U.S. 976 , 113 S.Ct. 469 , 121 L.Ed.2d 376 (1992) (finding that counsel's ineffectiveness will constitute "cause” for defendant's failure to challenge guilty plea on direct appeal, enabling defendant to seek collateral relief under Section 2255); Worthington v. U.S., 936 F.Supp. 586 (E.D.Wis.1996) (for the proposition that ineffective assistance of counsel may constitute cause for failing to raise argument on direct appeal); and Foy v. U.S., 838 F.Supp. 38 (E.D.N.Y.1993) (holding that on a Section 2255 motion, failure to rais…
discussed
Cited "see"
Lopez v. State
See Oliver v. United States, 961 F.2d 1339, 1342-43 (laches barred claim under then existing federal post-conviction statute made seventeen years after guilty plea), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 976 , 113 S.Ct. 469 , 121 L.Ed.2d 376 (1992); Robbins v. People, 107 P.3d 384, 390 (Colo.2005) (holding that enactment of a statute that provides no time limit for the filing of post-conviction petitions did not abrogate the common law defense of laches), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 853 , 126 S.Ct. 117 , 163 L.Ed.2d 126 (2005); Wright v. State, 711 So.2d 66, 67-68 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1998) (laches barred post-convic…
cited
Cited "see"
Veal v. Cooper
See Oliver v. United States, 961 F.2d 1339, 1342 (7th Cir.) (applying parallel Rule 9(a) applicable to § 2255 motions), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 976 , 113 S.Ct. 469 , 121 L.Ed.2d 376 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Rivers v. United States
See Oliver v. United States, 961 F.2d 1339 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 976 , 113 S.Ct. 469 , 121 L.Ed.2d 376 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Herrera
See Oliver v. United States, 961 F.2d 1339, 1341 (7th Cir.) (error alleged in § 2255 motion must be “jurisdictional, constitutional, or ... fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice”), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 976 , 113 S.Ct. 469 , 121 L.Ed.2d 376 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Dominic Evans
See Oliver v. United States, 961 F.2d 1339, 1343 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 469 (1992). 7 Additionally, because defendant did not request leave for discovery pursuant to Rule 6 governing 2255 proceedings, the district court could not err in not granting discovery.
discussed
Cited "see"
Manu Patel v. United States
Section 2255 requires that a district court grant a hearing unless “the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief_” - 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ; accord Oliver v. United States, 961 F.2d 1339 , 1343 n. 5 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 469 , 121 L.Ed.2d 376 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Geiger
See Oliver v. United States, 961 F.2d 1339, 1341 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 469 , 121 L.Ed.2d 376 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
Harold A. Ebbole v. United States
Rather, section 2255 requires that a district court grant a hearing, “[u]nless the motion and the files and records of the case' conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief....” 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ; accord Oliver v. United States, 961 F.2d 1339 , 1343 n. 5 (7th Cir.) (stating that a district court may deny a section 2255 motion without a hearing “if the allegations in the motion are unreasonably vague, conclusory, or incredible, or if the factual matters raised by the motion may be resolved on the record before the district court”), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 113 S.Ct. …
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Donald v. Costanzo, United States of America v. Scott A. Clawson, United States of America v. Anthony Thomas Civella
(2×)
See United States v. Flores, 959 F.2d 83, 88 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 469 , 121 L.Ed.2d 376 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Jose Hernandez Garrido, United States of America v. Ismael Villanueva-Hernandez, United States of America v. Jose Guerrero Valenzuela-Valles, United States of America v. Carlos Villanueva-Hernandez
See United States v. Flores, 959 F.2d 83, 88 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 469 , 121 L.Ed.2d 376 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Garrido
See United States v. Flores, 959 F.2d 83, 88 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 469 , 121 L.Ed.2d 376 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ramirez
Absent sufficiently definite and specific moving papers, a district court’s decision to conduct or not to conduct an evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress need only rest within the district court’s “reasoned discretion.” United States v. Walczak, 783 F.2d 852, 857 (9th Cir.1986), citing, United States v. Santoro, 600 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir.1979); see also United States v. Wardlow, 951 F.2d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 976 , 113 S.Ct. 469 , 121 L.Ed.2d 376 (1992).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Rodrigo Q. Rodriguez, Also Known as Poncho, Also Known as Jose Luis Camacho Diaz, United States of America v. Steven A. Glaus
See, e.g., United States v. Flores, 959 F.2d 83, 86-87 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 976 , 113 S.Ct. 469 , 121 L.Ed.2d 376 (1992).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Harley
v.
Keohane, Warden
v.
Keohane, Warden
No. 92-5474.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 9, 1992.
Published
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.