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

Mar 22, 2019
Whether one has anticipated a divorce or not, the process is far from easy. Even for those that intend on proceeding amicably, issues can arise that ignite emotions and cause tremendous stress. As such,…
Read More »
Feb 25, 2019
In the context of “crimes” and other offenses, traffic violations might seem petty. Yet, the truth is—a wide range of traffic-related offenses have the potential to produce serious consequences for those…
Read More »
Jan 28, 2019
Given the number of police and crime dramas on television, not to mention the live-action footage of arrests and police interrogations, many people are aware of statements known as Miranda Rights. For…
Read More »
Dec 27, 2018
In referencing an automobile collision that occurred in May of 1995, FindLaw discusses elements of the Family Purpose Doctrine and the idea of “vicarious liability.” In essence, if the owner of an automobile…
Read More »