18 U.S.C. § 2254
Civil forfeiture
Any property subject to forfeiture pursuant to section 2253 may be forfeited to the United States in a civil case in accordance with the procedures set forth in chapter 46.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 216
cases (62 in the last 5 years), 1964–2026 · leading case: Am. Library Ass'n, Appellants/cross-Appellees v. William P. Barr, Attorney Gen. of the United States, Appellees/cross-Appellants, 956 F.2d 1178 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
Am. Library Ass'n, Appellants/cross-Appellees v. William P. Barr, Attorney Gen. of the United States, Appellees/cross-Appellants, 956 F.2d 1178 (D.C. Cir. 1992). “205 -206 (1984), 18 U.S.C. § 2254 . B In 1988, on the recommendation of the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography (see 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL’S COMMISSION ON PORNOGRAPHY, FINAL REPORT 595, 618 (1986)), Congress passed the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act…”
Hooks v. Workman, 689 F.3d 1148 (10th Cir. 2012). “Hooks’s arguments amount to disagreement with the OCCA -47- concerning the relevance and prejudicial effect of the evidence, but we are not persuaded that the OCCA was wrong.”
Michael Frank Burgess v. United States, 874 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2017). “198 (2006) (deciding whether, as a matter of law, a district court has the authority to sua sponte deny a state prisoner’s 18 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely). We conduct de novo review of questions of law.”
Johnny L. Marshall v. Sec'y, Florida Dep't of Corr., 828 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2016). “And if a petitioner overcomes the exhaustion hurdle, under 18 U.S.C. § 2254 (d), we must defer to the state court’s resolution of the prisoner’s habeas claims unless the state court’s decision “ ‘was contrary to’ federal law then clearly established in the holdings of [the…”
Thompson v. Bell, 580 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. 2009). “Because the Tennessee state courts did not adjudicate Thompson's chemical competency claim on the merits, there is no state court decision to which this Court can defer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). Accordingly, this Court reviews the district court's adjudication of…”
Newland v. Hall, 527 F.3d 1162 (11th Cir. 2008). “Second, we determine if Williams, Wiggins, and Rompilla are "clearly established Federal law" under 18 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). This, in turn, requires that we address two subsidiary questions: how has the Court instructed us to define "clearly established Federal law," and, if a…”
United States v. Parcel of Rumson, NJ, Land, 507 U.S. 111 (1993). “See 18 U. S. C. §§ 2254 (a), 2254(g) (1988 ed.”
State v. Jess, 184 P.3d 133 (Haw. 2008). “[1] Jess brought a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2254 "present[ing] the question of whether the Hawaii extended sentencing scheme violates the United States Constitution's Sixth Amendment trial-by-jury clause pursuant to the rationale of the United…”
MERAS v. Sisto, 676 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2012). “Under 18 U.S.C. § 2254 (d), we must determine only whether the California courts unreasonably applied federal law as determined by the Supreme Court.”
Brandon Fox v. Ronald Desoto, Louisville Reg'l Airport Auth., 489 F.3d 227 (6th Cir. 2007). “In fact, Heck specifically concerned the clash between § 1983 and the federal ha-beas corpus statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2254 . This does not end the matter, however, because the Supreme Court’s decision in Wallace, issued during the pendency of this appeal, effectively abrogates the…”
Lee Moore v. Betty Mitchell, 708 F.3d 760 (6th Cir. 2013). “” 18 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). And the Supreme Court still has not adopted that rule.”
United States v. Shawn Crawford, 709 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 2013). “See 18 U.S.C. § 2254 (b)(3)(A)–( E). In contrast, in Evers we vacated the section of the restitution award dealing with childcare expenses.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 2254(a)(3) — 1 case
Am. Library Ass'n v. Thornburgh, 713 F. Supp. 469 (D.D.C. 1989).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.