In a habeas corpus case, the district court's denial of defendant's 28 U.S.C. section 2255 motion is vacated and remanded where: 1) defendant's case is not moot because success would shorten his supervised release term; 2) jurisdiction exists because cognizability is not always a jurisdictional limit; 3) the district court should determine whether defendant is entitled to reinstate his 2008 motion under F.R.C.P. Rule 60; and 4) Begay v. US, 553 U.S. 137 (2008), applies retroactively and error is cognizable on collateral review where not defaulted.

Local News and Events

Aug 14, 2018
From scheduling a real estate closing to questions regarding title insurance and attorneys’ fees, as well as checklists for buyers, lenders and mortgage brokers, the process of preparing for a real estate…
Read More »
Jul 11, 2018
While any person with a disability deserves the right to employment, in so much as he or she is able to perform a job, not every limitation is considered a “disability” within the parameters of the Americans…
Read More »
Jun 13, 2018
When children carry out criminal acts, police officers maintain discretion as to how they are handled. For instance, the child might be issued a warning, or he or she might be held and then released to…
Read More »
May 24, 2018
Contrary to contested divorces in which there are often disputes and disagreements pertaining to division of property, child custody or spousal support, uncontested divorce is a straightforward process.…
Read More »