green
Positive treatment
2.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re: Sealed Case
See United States v. Peterson, 225 F.3d 1167, 1170 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1131 , 121 S.Ct. 893 , 148 L.Ed.2d 799 (2001); United States v. Lawlor, 168 F.3d 633, 636 (2d Cir.1999); United States v. Moscahlaidis, 868 F.2d 1357, 1360 (3d Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Alba
Indeed, “[a]t this stage, the question is no longer whether the district court has substituted its judgment for that of the Sentencing Commission, but rather whether the court of appeals should substitute its judgment for that of the district court.” Id.; see also United States v. Queensborough, 227 F.3d 149, 160 (3d Cir.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1131 , 121 S.Ct. 894 , 148 L.Ed.2d 800 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lee v. Wetzel
While this court has held that “a section 2241 petition that seeks to challenge the validity of a federal sentence must be either dismissed or construed as a section 2255 motion,” Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir.2000), we have also observed that § 2255 "contains a 'savings clause,’ which acts as a limited exception to this general rule.” Id.; see also Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209, 212 (5th Cir.2000), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 894 , 148 L.Ed.2d 800 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jose Evaristo Reyes-Requena v. United States
(2×)
See, e.g., Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209, 214 (5th Cir.2000) (“Section 2241 is simply not available to prisoners as a means of challenging a result they previously obtained from a court considering their petition for habeas relief.”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 894 , 148 L.Ed.2d 800 (2001); Pack, 218 F.3d at 453 (“[Mjerely failing to succeed in a section 2255 motion does not establish the inadequacy or ineffectiveness of the section 2255 remedy.”); Id. at 452-53 (collecting cases); Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 878 (5th *902 Cir.2000) (“[A] prior unsuccessful § 2255 moti…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jogi v. Piland
(2×)
See United States v. Lawal, 231 F.3d 1045, 1048 (7th Cir.2000); United States v. Chaparro-Alcantara, 226 F.3d 616, 621 (7th Cir.2000), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 599 , 148 L.Ed.2d 513 (2000); see also United States v. Cordoba-Mosquera, 212 F.3d 1194, 1196 (11th Cir.2000) (per cu-riam), ce rt. denied sub. nom Zuniga v. United States, -— U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 893 , 148 L.Ed.2d 800 (2001); United States v. Li, 206 F.3d 56 , 60 (1st Cir.2000), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 378 , 148 L.Ed.2d 292 (2000); United States v. Lombera-Camorlinga, 206 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc), ce…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Arnulfo Zuniga
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 00-7512.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 22, 2001.
Cited by 15 opinions | Published
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.