Did you mean: Washington v. USC (2255) ?
Web Results

cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/12/07/13-36006.pdf

Dec 7, 2015 ... for the Western District of Washington. Benjamin H. ... UNITED STATES V. GILBERT. 2. SUMMARY*. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The panel affirmed the district court's denial of a federal prisoner's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as time barred. The panel ... 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) to file a collateral attack on a federal conviction ...

cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/02/01/16-15357.pdf

Feb 1, 2018 ... UNITED STATES V. WATSON. 2. SUMMARY**. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The panel affirmed the district court's denial of two defendants' motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging the validity of ... United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; ... Washington, D.C.; for Amici Curiae Ninth Circuit Federal.

cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/07/31/13-56376.pdf

Jul 31, 2015 ... relief from judgment following the denial of a section 2255 motion. The Supreme Court held in Gonzalez that a. “legitimate” Rule 60(b) motion in the habeas context is one that “attacks 'some defect in the integrity of the federal habeas proceedings.'” United States v. Washington, 653 F.3d. 1057, 1060 (9th ...

cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/11-6436/11-6436-2013-08-01.pdf?ts=1411028167

Aug 1, 2013 ... No. 11-6436. Ray v. United States. Page 3 relevant part, the district court found that: (1) Fourth Amendment issues ordinarily are not cognizable in a § 2255 motion; (2) the evidence adduced at trial revealed that Moore had, at a minimum, apparent authority to consent to the search; and (3) Ray failed to.

supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/426/317/case.html

Thus, while it is still true that the "remedy" afforded by § 2255 is "exactly commensurate with that which had previously been available by habeas corpus . . . ," Hill v. United States, 368 U. S. 424, 368 U. S. 427 (1962), the right to pursue that remedy with a free transcript has now been somewhat limited by Congress. [ Footnote ...

caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1615523.html

Nov 9, 2012 ... Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), to show that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of trial .... Unlike all of our sister circuits, this court has yet to decide whether equitable tolling applies to a motion filed pursuant to § 2255. In United States v.

caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1872435.html

Aug 29, 2017 ... STANDARD OF REVIEW. We review de novo a district court's decision to deny a § 2255 motion. United States v. Reves, 774 F.3d 562, 564 (9th Cir. .... United States v. Washington, 861 F.2d 350, 352 (2d Cir. 1988). We are persuaded that a rule analogous to the Stromberg principle should apply in the ...

hls.harvard.edu/content/uploads/2014/11/2014_Ames-Final-Version-Duke-v-United-States.pdf

District Court Memorandum Decision and Order on § 2255 Motion … ... ORDER LIST. Certiorari Granted. September 15, 2014. 13-1677 Duke v. United States. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted on the following two questions: 1. Whether counsel renders .... set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 ( 1984).

www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/briefs/2017/08/18/16-1298_bekteshi_opp.pdf

Aug 18, 2017 ... In the Supreme Court of the United States. ASTRIT BEKTESHI, AKA ERMIR MUHAMET GONXHI,. AKA ERIMI GOXHAJ, AKA MIRI, AKA BILLY, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ... Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 .... Rule 11(a) , Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States ...