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

Nov 21, 2022
Negotiating any financial contract is fraught with potential perils. You are dealing with complex arrangements that could impact your business – or you, personally. Having the right legal help is recommended…
Read More »
Oct 03, 2022
If you are convicted with a DUI charge in Georgia, you could be facing serious repercussions. An experienced criminal defense attorney may be able to help you minimize these effects. Here are the three…
Read More »
Sep 01, 2022
Entering the entertainment industry can be a very profitable career, but it has many pitfalls to avoid. If you get your “big break” as a singer, actor or other niche, take a moment to consider your future.…
Read More »
Aug 01, 2022
Contracts are an integral part of your business. These contracts rely on both parties being able to perform specific duties and obligations detailed in the documentation. At times, misunderstandings and…
Read More »