16 Cited authorities

United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (2005) Cited 25,443 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory
Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,699 times 100 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt”
Alleyne v. United States
570 U.S. 99 (2013) Cited 8,143 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding such finding necessary to trigger higher mandatory minimum
Mayle v. Felix
545 U.S. 644 (2005) Cited 4,629 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that amendments to habeas petitions relate back under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c) where they are “tied to a common core of operative facts” and citing with approval Mandacina v. United States, 328 F.3d 995, 999–1000 (8th Cir.2003) (amended petition alleging failure to disclose a particular report relates back to date of original petition generally alleging Brady violation)
Schriro v. Summerlin
542 U.S. 348 (2004) Cited 2,209 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding "[n]ew substantive rules generally apply retroactively"
Tyler v. Cain
533 U.S. 656 (2001) Cited 1,466 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that "made" means "held" under identical language in § 2244(b) and that it must be held retroactive by the Supreme Court
Simpson v. United States
721 F.3d 875 (7th Cir. 2013) Cited 485 times
Holding that Alleyne announced a new rule of law
In re Payne
733 F.3d 1027 (10th Cir. 2013) Cited 294 times
Holding Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314, announced a new rule of constitutional law but had not been made retroactive on collateral review by the Supreme Court
In re Mazzio
756 F.3d 487 (6th Cir. 2014) Cited 217 times
Holding that Alleyne is not retroactive
U.S. v. Espinoza-Saenz
235 F.3d 501 (10th Cir. 2000) Cited 255 times
Holding "claims [that are] totally separate and distinct, in both time and type from those raised in original motion," do not relate back to the date of the original motion.
Section 2255 - Federal custody; remedies on motion attacking sentence
28 U.S.C. § 2255 Cited 129,989 times 129 Legal Analyses
Adopting one-year limitations period for §2255 motions
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 91,257 times 91 Legal Analyses
Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint
Section 3582 - Imposition of a sentence of imprisonment
18 U.S.C. § 3582 Cited 55,247 times 66 Legal Analyses
Granting district court discretion to modify sentence when Sentencing Guideline upon which sentence was based is subsequently amended

USA v. Mariscal et al

16 Cited authorities

Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory

Holding that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt”

Holding such finding necessary to trigger higher mandatory minimum

Holding "[n]ew substantive rules generally apply retroactively"

Holding that "made" means "held" under identical language in § 2244(b) and that it must be held retroactive by the Supreme Court

Holding that Alleyne announced a new rule of law

Holding Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314, announced a new rule of constitutional law but had not been made retroactive on collateral review by the Supreme Court

Holding that Alleyne is not retroactive

Holding "claims [that are] totally separate and distinct, in both time and type from those raised in original motion," do not relate back to the date of the original motion.

Adopting one-year limitations period for §2255 motions

Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

Granting district court discretion to modify sentence when Sentencing Guideline upon which sentence was based is subsequently amended