28 U.S.C. § 2256
Omitted]
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 85
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: United States v. Miller, 665 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 2011).
United States v. Miller, 665 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 2011). “2003) (holding that condition prohibiting possession of “sexually explicit conduct” as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 2256 (2) “is neither vague or overly broad”), and United States v.”
Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977). “United States, where a congressional intent to restrict *100 the bypass formulation with respect to collateral review under 28 U. S. C. § 2256 was found to inhere in Fed.”
Jason Albert Becht v. United States, 403 F.3d 541 (8th Cir. 2005). “The certificate framed the issue for appeal as follows: “Did Petitioner receive ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal because his attorney did not challenge the validity of his guilty plea on the grounds that 28 U.S.C. § 2256 (8)(B) was unconstitutional?” II.”
Orison F. McDonald II & Herbert Darrell Bomar v. Bill Burrows, Sheriff of Wichita Cnty., Texas, the State of Texas, & the State of Minnesota, 731 F.2d 294 (5th Cir. 1984). “McDonald also filed complaints seeking habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2256 and an injunction against extradition and criminal prosecution pursuant to 28 U.”
Davila v. United States, 843 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2016). “28 U.S.C. § 2256 . He contends that conspiracy to commit a robbery could be deemed a crime of violence only under the residual clause in § 924(c)(3)(B)- and that this clause should be held unconstitutional under Johnson’s reasoning.”
Kevin T. Hall v. United States, 371 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2004). “On February 9, 2001, Hall filed a motion to vacate or set aside his conviction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2256 . The district court denied the motion.”
Anthony R. Martin-Trigona v. Alan Shiff, 702 F.2d 380 (2d Cir. 1983). “” See 28 U.S.C. § 2256 (Supp. II 1978). . Bankruptcy Rule 920(a) sets forth guidelines governing contempt proceedings.”
United States v. Khalid Hassan Shabazz, 263 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 2001). “For these reasons, we have held that a defendant best pursues a claim of ineffective assistance through a post-conviction proceeding brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2256 . United States v. Long, 190 F.”
Thomas L. Ludwig v. United States, 162 F.3d 456 (6th Cir. 1998). “He now appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate his sentence, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2256 . We vacate the district court’s decision and remand for rehearing to determine whether petitioner asked counsel to perfect an appeal in this case.”
In the Matter of Hipp, Inc., Debtor. Thomas J. Griffith, Tr. v. David Oles, 895 F.2d 1503 (5th Cir. 1990). “§ 1480 , and to issue writs of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2256 , were also repealed. Section 157, 28 U.”
United States v. Webb, 217 F. Supp. 3d 381 (D. Mass. 2016). “INTRODUCTION On September 13, 2016, the Court heard arguments by petitioners Charlie Webb (“Webb”) and Timothy Meadows (“Meadows”) (collectively, the “Defendants”) and the government related to the Defendants’ motions to correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2256 . Electronic…”
Monahan v. Winn, 276 F. Supp. 2d 196 (D. Mass. 2003). “On or around February 19, 2003, 3 Sardi-nha filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2256 in which he challenged the BOP policy.”
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.