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

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 »
Apr 10, 2018
When the local government distributes property tax bills, the majority of property owners assume that they cannot be challenged. On the contrary, local tax assessors generate property tax assessments,…
Read More »