U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART VI— PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS › Chapter CHAPTER 154— SPECIAL HABEAS CORPUS PROCEDURES IN CAPITAL CASES

28 U.S.C. § 2264

Scope of Federal review; district court adjudications

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Whenever a State prisoner under capital sentence files a petition for habeas corpus relief to which this chapter applies, the district court shall only consider a claim or claims that have been raised and decided on the merits in the State courts, unless the failure to raise the claim properly is—(1) the result of State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States;(2) the result of the Supreme Court’s recognition of a new Federal right that is made retroactively applicable; or(3) based on a factual predicate that could not have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence in time to present the claim for State or Federal post-conviction review.(b) Following review subject to subsections (a), (d), and (e) of section 2254, the court shall rule on the claims properly before it.(Added Pub. L. 104–132, title I, § 107(a), Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1223.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section applicable to cases pending on or after Apr. 24, 1996, see section 107(c) of Pub. L. 104–132, set out as a note under section 2261 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 113 cases, 1972–2017 · leading case: Lindh v. Murphy
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lindh v. Murphy (1997) scotus · cites it 4× “See 28 U. S. C. § 2264 (b) (1994 ed., Supp. II); 110 Stat.”
Patrick James Jeffries v. Tana Wood, Superintendent (1997) ca9 · cites it 3× “, 28 U.S.C. § 2264 (b). The absence of such a statutory interplay was a factor in Landgraf s determination of whether Congress had made a purposeful decision as to an effective date for various provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.”
Duncan v. Walker (2001) scotus “” Finally, 28 U. S. C. § 2264 (a)(3) (1994 ed., Supp.”
Brecht v. Abrahamson (1993) scotus “In 1972, a bill was proposed that would have amended 28 U. S. C. § 2264 to require habeas petitioners to show that “ ‘a different result would probably have obtained if such constitutional violation had not occurred.”
Cavazos v. Smith (2011) scotus “1214 , that court had no power to afford relief unless Smith could show either that the California Court of Appeal’s decision affirming the conviction “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of,” clearly established federal law as reflected in the holdings of…”
Dennis LeBlanc v. Randall Mathena (2016) ca4 · cites it 2× “Under AEDPA, a federal court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner, like Petitioner, if the prisoner’s state court adjudication “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United…”
Kelley v. Secretary for the Department of Corrections (2004) ca11 “]” 28 U.S.C. § 2264 (b) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court noted that where retroactive chapter 154 applies and incorporates parts of chapter 153 by reference, it renders *1340 those portions of AEDPA retroactive for its limited purposes.”
Paul Browning v. Renee Baker (2017) ca9 “-, 28 U.S.C. § 2264 (d)(2). Even so, the Nevada Supreme Court’s ultimate conclusion was not unreasonable because Browning fails to show prejudice.”
Withrow v. Williams (1993) scotus “Title 28 U. S. C. § 2264 (a) provides: “The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is…”
Aaron Lindh v. James P. Murphy, Warden (1996) ca7 “But we think that Lindh misunderstands Chapter 154 when contending that § 2264(b) has “no function other than to cause certain of the otherwise inapplicable Chapter 153 revisions to apply retroactively” (Supp.”
Holland v. Horn (2001) paed · cites it 2× “As we found in regard to Claim V, we accept Petitioner’s argument that Claim VI was thus decided in state court, and we will move on to consider whether that decision satisfies the standard of review set forth in the AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. § 2264 (d). Again, as in Claim V, Petitioner…”
Richard Cooey v. Ralph Coyle, Warden (2002) ca6 “See 28 U.S.C. § 2264 (e)(2)(A)®). The court also held that Cooey “failed to show-that his trial lawyers’ performance fell below an objective standard of reasonable representation.”
Show all 113 citing cases →
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.