Court decisions
Barrett v. United States: One Act Cannot Bring Two Convictions Under § 924(c) and § 924(j)
The Court held Congress did not clearly authorize convictions under both 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) and § 924(j) for a single act.
Bowe v. United States: Successive § 2255 Rules Are Not the Same as State Habeas Rules
The Court held that 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1)'s bar on repeat claims does not apply to federal prisoners' successive § 2255 motions.
Hewitt v. United States: Resentencing After Vacatur Gets First Step Act Benefits
The Court held that when an old § 924(c) sentence is vacated, the First Step Act's lower penalties apply at the new sentencing.
A § 2255 motion does not automatically stay related civil cases
A pending § 2255 motion does not automatically stay a related civil lawsuit. A federal court in Indiana refused to pause one. What it means.
Duplicate 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) counts and § 2255
A court granted a § 2255 motion where the lawyer failed to object to a gun counted twice: a § 924(c) conviction plus a guidelines increase.
United States v. Edmonds: a § 2255 motion in the record
A real federal § 2255 case walked through step by step: the claims raised, how the court read the trial record, and why the motion was denied.
Trial attorneys cannot outsource their duty to advise on appeal (United States v. Herring, 10th Cir. 2019)
In United States v. Herring (10th Cir. 2019), the court held a trial lawyer must consult with the client about an appeal and ordered a hearing.
Texas “deadly conduct” and the ACCA residual clause after United States v. Davis
A federal court held Texas deadly conduct is not a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act, in a successive § 2255 case after Johnson.
Fogle’s Filings Illustrate How Not to Challenge a Federal Conviction
Sovereign-citizen arguments and attacks on the § 2255 deadline fail in federal court. Jared Fogle’s post-conviction filings show why.
10th Circuit: Withdrawal of a meritless § 2255 motion and the successive-motion bar
A prisoner withdrew a § 2255 motion after admitting it had no merit. The Tenth Circuit counted it as his first motion, barring a later one.