green
Positive treatment
6.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Esposito v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Flagler County)
See Tinker v. Moore, 255 F.3d 1331 , 1334-35 (11th Cir. 2001) (holding that, even though Florida law allows a prisoner two years to file a Rule 3.850 motion, the prisoner must file the motion within one year after his conviction becomes final in order to toll the one-year limitation period), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1144 (2002); Webster v. Moore, 199 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir.) (per curiam) (state petitions must be pending in order to toll the limitations period), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 991 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Franklin v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Duval County)
See Tinker v. Moore, 255 F.3d 1331 , 1334-35 (11th Cir. 2001) (holding that, even though Florida law allows a prisoner two years to file a Rule 3.850 motion, the prisoner must file the motion within one year after his conviction becomes final in order to toll the one-year limitation period), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1144 (2002); Webster v. Moore, 199 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir.) (per curiam) (state petitions must be pending in order to toll the limitations period), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 991 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Honester v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (Duval County)
See Tinker v. Moore, 255 F.3d 1331 , 1334-35 (11th Cir. 2001) (holding that, even though Florida law allows a prisoner two years to file a Rule 3.850 motion, the prisoner must file the motion within one year after his conviction becomes final in order to toll the one-year limitation period), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1144 (2002): Webster v. Moore, 199 F.3d 1256 , 1259 (11th Cir.) (per curiam) ("Under § 2244(d)(2), even 'properly filed' state court petitions must be 'pending' in order to toll the limitations period.
discussed
Cited "see"
Heyward v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Polk County)
See Tinker v. Moore, 255 F.3d 1331 , 1333-34 (11th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1144 (2002). 3 Mr. Heyward has not satisfied the requirements for equitable tolling of the limitations period, see Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 645 (2010), nor has he presented any arguments sufficient to support a claim of actual innocence.
cited
Cited "see"
Pal v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Polk County)
See Tinker v. Moore, 255 F.3d 1331 , 1333-34 2 (11th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1144 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Prince v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Duval County)
See Tinker v. Moore, 255 F.3d 1331 , 1334-35 (11th Cir. 2001) (holding that, even though Florida law allows a prisoner two years to file a Rule 3.850 motion, the prisoner must file the motion within one year after his conviction becomes final in order to toll the one-year limitation period), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1144 (2002); Webster v. Moore, 199 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir.) (per curiam) ("Under § 2244(d)(2), even 'properly filed' state court petitions must be 'pending' in order to toll the limitations period.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Morris, Unpublished Decision (3-16-2005)
See State v. Tibbetts (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 146 , 164-165 , certiorari denied (2002), 534 U.S. 1144 , 122 S.Ct. 1100 , 151 L.Ed.2d 997 ; State v. Bradley (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 570 , 571 . {¶ 99} We are not persuaded by Appellant's assertion that his trial counsel should have moved for an acquittal pursuant to Crim.R. 29 on the grounds that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain his convictions.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Cox
See United States v. Finley, 245 F.3d 199, 204 (2d Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1144 , 122 S.Ct. 1101 , 151 L.Ed.2d 997 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Chavez
See, e.g., United States v. Finley, 245 F.3d 199, 203 (2d Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1144 , 122 S.Ct. 1101 , 151 L.Ed.2d 997 (2002); cf. United States v. Rivera, 844 F.2d 916, 925-26 (2d Cir.1988) (applying constructive possession principles in upholding conviction under the predecessor to 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g), which, inter alia, made it unlawful for a convicted felon to possess a firearm).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Calderon, Unpublished Decision (1-30-2007)
See, e.g., State v. Tibbets (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 146 , 161 , certiorari denied (2002), 534 U.S. 1144 , 122 S.Ct. 1100 (observing that defendant's use of an assumed name was probative of defendant's consciousness of guilt); State v. Williams (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 1 , 11 , certiorari denied (1998), 522 U.S. 1033 , 118 S.Ct. 703 , quoting State v. Eaton (1969), 19 Ohio St.2d 145 , 160 , 196 , 249 N.E.2d 897 , vacated on other grounds (1972), 408 U.S. 935 , 92 S.Ct. 2857 , 33 L.Ed.2d 750 , quoting Wigmore, Evidence (3 Ed.) 111, Section 276 (stating that [i]t is today universally conceded that the…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hill
v.
Sparkman, Warden
v.
Sparkman, Warden
No. 01-7358.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 19, 2002.
Published
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.