Mankarious v. United States (2002)

See United States v. Najjar, 283 F.3d 1306, 1307 (11th Cir.2002) (decision regarding request to withdraw guilty plea reviewed for abuse of discretion), ce rt. denied, — U.S.-, 123 S.Ct. 108 , 154 L.Ed.2d 32 (2002); United States v. Ruiz-Rodriguez, 277 F.3d 1281 , 1285 n. 6 (11th Cir.2002) (magistrate judge’s authority reviewed de novo); Thompson v. Haley, 255 F.3d 1292, 1297 (11th Cir.2001) (“Ineffectiveness of counsel is a mixed question of law and fact subject to de novo r…

See United States v. Williams, 684 F.2d 296, 299 (4th Cir.1982) (statute of limitations in 18 U.S.C. § 3282 is not jurisdictional, but a waivable affirmative defense); see also United States v. Najjar, 283 F.3d 1306, 1309 (11th Cir.2002) (“[T]he expiration of the statute of limitations does not divest a district court of subject matter jurisdiction, but rather constitutes an affirmative defense, which the defendant can waive ....”) (citations omitted), cert. denied, — U.S. —…

Accordingly, the doctrine of procedural default precludes the district court from considering certain claims presented in a § 2255 motion that the defendant could have raised on direct appeal, unless the defendant “can show good cause for failing to raise the issue[s] and actual prejudice.” Galbraith v. United States, 313 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir.2002); accord Mankarious v. United States, 282 F.3d 940, 943 (7th Cir.2002) (“An issue not raised on direct appeal is barred from …

See Terrill v. Chao, 31 Fed.Appx. 99, 100 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 823 , 123 S.Ct. 108 , 154 L.Ed.2d 32 (2002). 6 Accordingly, in addition to finding that Count I must be dismissed for failure to allege an actionable adverse employment action, as discussed supra, this Court must dismiss Count I for failure to aver that Defendants discriminated against a protected class of individuals. 7 C.