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

Oct 29, 2018
Taking many forms, fraud is a general term used to describe the deliberate deception of a person by another for his or her own gain. Typically, an individual or entity will resort to fraud in order to…
Read More »
Sep 26, 2018
In the aftermath of a devastating car wreck, some individuals face injuries and impairments that will affect them for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately, many can no longer perform their job duties,…
Read More »
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 »