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

28 U.S.C. § 2265

Certification and judicial review

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Certification.—(1)In general.—If requested by an appropriate State official, the Attorney General of the United States shall determine—(A) whether the State has established a mechanism for the appointment, compensation, and payment of reasonable litigation expenses of competent counsel in State postconviction proceedings brought by indigent prisoners who have been sentenced to death;(B) the date on which the mechanism described in subparagraph (A) was established; and(C) whether the State provides standards of competency for the appointment of counsel in proceedings described in subparagraph (A).(2)Effective date.—The date the mechanism described in paragraph (1)(A) was established shall be the effective date of the certification under this subsection.(3)Only express requirements.—There are no requirements for certification or for application of this chapter other than those expressly stated in this chapter.(b)Regulations.—The Attorney General shall promulgate regulations to implement the certification procedure under subsection (a).(c)Review of Certification.—(1)In general.—The determination by the Attorney General regarding whether to certify a State under this section is subject to review exclusively as provided under chapter 158 of this title.(2)Venue.—The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction over matters under paragraph (1), subject to review by the Supreme Court under section 2350 of this title.(3)Standard of review.—The determination by the Attorney General regarding whether to certify a State under this section shall be subject to de novo review.(Added Pub. L. 109–177, title V, § 507(c)(1), Mar. 9, 2006, 120 Stat. 250.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 2265, added Pub. L. 104–132, title I, § 107(a), Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1223, related to the application of sections 2262, 2263, 2264, and 2266 of this title to State unitary review procedures, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 109–177, title V, § 507(c)(1), Mar. 9, 2006, 120 Stat. 250.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section applicable to cases pending on or after Mar. 9, 2006, with special rule for certain cases pending on that date, see section 507(d) of Pub. L. 109–177, set out as an Effective Date of 2006 Amendment note under section 2251 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 65 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Troy A. Ashmus v. Jeanne Woodford, Acting Warden of California State Prison at San Quentin
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Troy A. Ashmus v. Jeanne Woodford, Acting Warden of California State Prison at San Quentin (2000) ca9 · cites it 12× “28 U.S.C. § 2265 (a) (emphases added). 4 C.”
Habeas Corpus Resource Center v. United States Department of Justice (2016) ca9 · cites it 4× “In 2013, the Attorney General finalized regulations to implement a certification procedure, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2265 (b), and the plaintiffs then brought this action, which raises numerous challenges to the regulations, which challenges are based upon the Administrative…”
Calderon v. Ashmus (1998) scotus · cites it 2× “See 28 U. S. C. § 2265 (a) (1994 ed., Supp. II).”
Orville Cephas v. John Nash, Warden, Ray Brook Federal Correctional Institution (2003) ca2 “Section 2255 Motion Five years later, on November 5, 1996, Cephas and various of his co-defendants, through counsel, moved for collateral relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2265 , asserting, inter alia, that their convictions on multiple firearms counts, all relating to a single…”
United States v. Thilo Brown (2017) ca4 “The district court adopted the PSR’s factual findings and Guideline applications, and on July 14, 2003, sentenced Brown to 322 months in prison. Brown’s sentence consisted of 262 months for the drug charge and 60 months for the firearm charge.”
Wilson v. Commissioner (2013) ca9 · cites it 2× “§ 4140 (b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 2265 (c)(3); 30 U.S.C. § 1300 (j)(4)(ii)(I); 42 U.”
Withrow v. Williams (1993) scotus “, and the National District Attorneys Association, Inc., as Amici Curiae; see also Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae (United States must defend against claims raised by federal prisoners under 28 U.”
Ashmus v. Calderon (1998) cand · cites it 5× “28 U.S.C. § 2265 (a). Thus the only difference, apart from covering states that integrate direct appeal and collateral attacks, is that section 2265(a) does not allow for a mechanism to be established by an “agency authorized by state law.”
Davis v. United States (1974) scotus “In Sanders the Court said: “We consider here the standards which should guide a federal court in deciding whether to grant a hearing on a motion of a federal prisoner under 28 U. S. C. § 2265 .” 373 U. S., at 2 . That issue arises, not under paragraph one of § 2255, setting…”
United States v. Taylor (2016) ca10 “McHugh Circuit Judge Eric Jackson Taylor appeals the district court’s order denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2265 . Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.”
Rodriguez v. United States (2017) ca2 “SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner José Hernando Rodriguez appeals from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2265 petition for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking relief from his 2008 convictions for murder in the course of a drug conspiracy in violation of 21 U.”
Franklyn Bannerman v. George E. Snyder, Warden (2003) ca6 “He later filed in the sentencing court a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2265 to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence.”
Show all 65 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.