Colonel v. United States, 83 U.S.L.W. 3216 (2014). · Go Syfert
Search
Colonel v. United States, 83 U.S.L.W. 3216 (2014). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Ace Patterson v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
11th Cir. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Cano, 558 Fed.Appx. 936 , 941 n. 6 (11th Cir.) (“The fact that the district court entered an amended judgment to correct clerical errors does not result in a new judgment that is exempt from the rules on second or successive petitions....”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 387 , 190 L.Ed.2d 273 (2014); accord Marmolejos v. United States, 789 F.3d 66, 71-72 (2d Cir.2015); United States v. Ledesma-Cuesta, 476 Fed.Appx. 412 , 412 n. 2 (3d Cir.2012); In re Martin, 398 Fed.Appx. 326, 327 (10th Cir.2010).
discussed Cited "see" Marmolejos v. United States
2d Cir. · 2015 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord United States v. Cano, 558 Fed.Appx. 936 , 942 n.6 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 387 , 190 L.Ed.2d 273 (2014); United States v. Ledesma-Cuesta, 476 Fed.Appx. 412 , 412 n.2 (3d Cir.2012) (rejecting defendant’s “admitted]” attempt “to correct his judgment” pursuant to Rule 36 “because he believe[d] that this w[ould] allow him to proceed anew via 28 U.S.C. § 2255 without, having to satisfy the ‘second or successive’ requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (h) and 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Jose Bran (2×)
4th Cir. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence low
All but one circuit court to consider this issue have held that a sentence imposed for a violation of § 924(j) must run consecutively to other sentences because Congress intended that punishment imposed for a § 924(j) violation be subject to the consecutive sentence mandate of § 924(c). 4 See United States v. Berrios, 676 F.3d 118, 143 (3d Cir.2012) (“[Bjecause a § 924(j) sentence is imposed on a defendant for violating subsection (c), such a sentence is ‘imposed under’ subsection (c).”); United States v. Battle, 289 F.3d 661, 666 (10th Cir.2002) (“The plain meaning of the words …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Antonio COLONEL
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 14–6130..
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 14, 2014.
83 U.S.L.W. 3216
Published

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.