green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
10.2 score
G Cite
cited 4× by 2 distinct cases ·
“[W]here a prisoner had an opportunity to present his claim properly in his first § 2255 petition, but failed to do so, any ‘ineffectiveness’ of his current § 2255 petition is due to him and not to § 2255.”
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Mustafa Abdullah v. Bill Hedrick, Warden, United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners
(2×)
here a prisoner had an opportunity to present his claim properly in his first 2255 petition, but failed to do so, any 'ineffectiveness' of his current 2255 petition is due to him and not to 2255.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Mustafa Abdullah v. Bill Hedrick
here a prisoner had an opportunity to present his claim properly in his first 2255 petition, but failed to do so, any 'ineffectiveness' of his current 2255 petition is due to him and not to 2255.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Jay Clint Crouch v. Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board Leroy Brownlee, Chairman.
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
later petition is successive when it: (1) raises a claim challenging the petitioner's conviction or sentence that was or could have been raised in an earlier petition; or (2) otherwise constitutes an abuse of the writ.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Jay Clint Crouch v. Larry Norris
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
later petition is successive when it: (1) raises a claim challenging the petitioner's conviction or sentence that was or could have been raised in an earlier petition; or (2) otherwise constitutes an abuse of the writ.
discussed
Cited "see"
Flores Montano v. Spaulding
See United States v. Barrett, 178 F.3d 34 , 50 n. 10 (1st Cir. 1999) cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1176 , 120 S.Ct. 1208 ; Rogers v. United States, 180 F.3d 349 , 357 n. 15 (1st Cir. 1999) cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1126 , 120 S.Ct. 958 (2000)(motion under § 2255 is the “exclusive remedy in the sentencing court for any errors occurring at or prior to sentencing, including construction of the sentence itself”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Cunningham v. Grondolsky
See United States v. Barrett , 178 F.3d 34 , 50 n. 10 (1st Cir. 1999) cert. denied , 528 U.S. 1176 , 120 S.Ct. 1208 , 145 L.Ed.2d 1110 ; Rogers v. United States , 180 F.3d 349 , 357 n. 15 (1st Cir. 1999) cert. denied , 528 U.S. 1126 , 120 S.Ct. 958 , 145 L.Ed.2d 831 (2000) (motion under § 2255 is the "exclusive remedy in the sentencing court for any errors occurring at or prior to sentencing, including construction of the sentence itself").
discussed
Cited "see"
Rodriguez v. Martinez
See United States v. Barrett, 178 F.3d 34, 50-52 (1st Cir.1999) cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1176 , 120 S.Ct. 1208 , 145 L.Ed.2d 1110 (2000); Gonzalez v. United States, 150 F.Supp.2d 236, 241 (D.Mass.2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
Tavares v. United States
See United States v. Barrett, 178 F.3d 34, 45 (1st Cir.1999) (noting availability of motion to amend under Rule 15 in section 2255 proceeding), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1176 , 120 S.Ct. 1208 , 145 L.Ed.2d 1110 (2000); Rule 12, 28 U.S.C. fol. § 2255 (court may apply Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if it deems appropriate where “no procedure is specifically prescribed in these rules”); 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (applications for habeas corpus may be amended “as provided in the rules of procedure applicable to civil actions”).
cited
Cited "see"
Charles C. Delaney III v. James Matesanz
See United States v. Barrett, 178 F.3d 34, 53 (1st Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1176 , 120 S.Ct. 1208 , 145 L.Ed.2d 1110 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Gould
See, e.g., Diaz v. State, 743 A.2d 1166, 1171 (Del. 1999) (‘‘all persons are qualified for jury service except those who . . . are unable to read, speak, and under- stand the English language’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]); State v. Ji, 251 Kan. 3, 8 , 832 P.2d 1176 (1992) (jurors must be able to read and write English); State v. Comeaux, 252 La. 481, 486 , 211 So. 2d 620 (1968) (‘‘[t]he requirement that a person be able to read and write the English language to be qualified for jury service is a reasonable and nondiscrimina- tory regulation’’); see also United States v.…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Antonio Rodriguez
(2×)
It is well settled that once the purpose of the traffic stop is completed, a police officer “may not ‘further detain the vehicle or its occupants unless something that occurred during the traffic stop generated the necessary reasonable suspicion to justify a further detention.’ ” Torres-Ramos, 536 F.3d at 550 (quoting United States v. Blair, 524 F.3d 740, 752 (6th Cir.2008)); see also United States v. Hill, 195 F.3d 258, 264 (6th Cir.1999) (“Once the purpose of the traffic stop is completed, a motorist cannot be further detained unless something that occurred during the stop caused t…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Reid MacHinery, Inc. v. Lanzer
See U.S. v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 687-688 , 105 S.Ct. 1568 , 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985); see also United States v. Hill, 195 F.3d 258, 264 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1176 , 120 S.Ct. 1207 , 145 L.Ed.2d 1110 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Johnson
However, ‘the supervisory relationship ... need not have existed at the same time with regard to all five persons, and the five persons need not act together.’ United States v. Lueth, 807 F.2d 719, 731 (8th Cir.1986) ....; see also Richardson [v. United States], [ 526 U.S. 813, 823-24 ,] 119 S.Ct. [1707,] 1713 [, 143 L.Ed.2d 985 (1999) ] (statutory requirements of derivation of income or resources and action in concert with five or more persons do not need to be satisfied with respect to each underlying crime).”), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1176 , 120 S.Ct. 1208 , 145 L.Ed.2d 1110 (2000); Un…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Roberts
See also, United States v. Hill, 195 F.3d at 258, 273 (6th Cir.1999) (“It is well-established in this Circuit that an alert by a properly-trained and reliable dog establishes probable cause sufficient to justify a warrantless search of a stopped vehicle”), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1176 , 120 S.Ct. 1207 , 145 L.Ed.2d 1110 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Whiting v. United States
See, e.g., United States v. Escobar-de Jesus, 187 F.3d 148 , 157 n. 1, 160 n. 6 (1st Cir.1999) (as to the former), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1176 , 120 S.Ct. 1208 , 145 L.Ed.2d 1110 (2000); United States v. Rivera-Martinez, 931 F.2d 148, 153-54 (1st Cir.1991) (same); United States v. Kim, 196 F.3d 1079, 1082-83 (9th Cir.1999) (as to the latter).
Lai
v.
Pitzer, Warden
v.
Pitzer, Warden
No. 99-7675.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 22, 2000.
Published
Citer courts: Eighth Circuit (5)
C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.