Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 582 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Uchenna H. Okereke v. United States of America. United States of America v. Uchenna H. Okereke.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Uchenna H. Okereke v. United States of America. United States of America v. Uchenna H. Okereke Anchor | green | “motions pursuant to 28 u.s.c. 2255 are the presumptive means by which federal prisoners can challenge their convictions or sentences that are allegedly in violation of the constitution.” | 182 |
| 2 | Mario Lenardo Cradle v. United States of America, Ex Rel. John Miner, Warden, Allenwood Federal Prison Camp | green | “only where the petitioner demonstrates that some limitation of scope or procedure would prevent a 2255 proceeding from affording him a full hearing and adjudication of his wrongful detention claim.” | 170 |
| 3 | Rehaif v. United States | green | “must show that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and also that he knew he had the relevant status when he possessed it.” | 107 |
| 4 | In Re Ocsulis Dorsainvil | red | “had no earlier opportunity to challenge his conviction for a crime that an intervening change in substantive law may negate.” | 106 |
| 5 | Robert Russell v. R. Martinez | green | “a section 2255 motion filed in the sentencing court is the presumptive means for a federal prisoner to challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence” | 10 |
| 6 | Joseph Scott v. J. Shartle | green | “because petitioner is challenging his career offender designation and is not claiming that he is now innocent of the predicate offense, he does not fall within the 'safety valve' exception created in in re dorsainvil and cannot proceed under 2241.” | 7 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.