13 Cited authorities

Pennsylvania v. Finley
481 U.S. 551 (1987) Cited 6,984 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that States need not provide appointed counsel in post-conviction proceedings
Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.
459 U.S. 56 (1982) Cited 3,175 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that the filing of a notice of appeal "confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal"
Carlisle v. United States
517 U.S. 416 (1996) Cited 972 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a district court could not use inherent authority to extend a plain and unambiguous Rule of Criminal Procedure that limited district court’s authority to enter a judgment of acquittal to seven days
Johnson v. Avery
393 U.S. 483 (1969) Cited 1,345 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, unless alternative sources of assistance are provided, prisoners must be allowed access to inmate "writ-writers"
United States v. Morgan
346 U.S. 502 (1954) Cited 1,851 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that writ of error coram nobis was appropriate vehicle for prisoner's request that prior conviction be vacated for failure to advise him of his right to counsel, and where "no other remedy [was] then available and sound reasons exist[ed] for failure to seek appropriate earlier relief"
Pa. Bureau of Correction v. U.S. Marshals
474 U.S. 34 (1985) Cited 492 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the custodian named in a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum must " ‘bring the party before the judge who granted the writ,’ " and there is no authority for a court "to cause third parties who are neither custodians nor parties to the litigation to bear the cost of producing the prisoner in a federal court"
United States v. Smith
331 U.S. 469 (1947) Cited 275 times
Holding that Rule 33's time limitations cabin the district courts' power to grant a new trial
U.S. v. Berger
375 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2004) Cited 121 times
Holding that no Sixth Amendment right to counsel exists for a defendant filing a post-conviction, post-appeal Rule 33 motion and that, in deciding whether to appoint counsel, the district court should consider "the complexity of the issue presented" in that Rule 33 motion
United States v. Meyers
95 F.3d 1475 (10th Cir. 1996) Cited 147 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding district court's failure to hold a timely pretrial release hearing was moot in light of defendant's subsequent conviction
Trenkler v. U.S.
268 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2001) Cited 110 times 1 Legal Analyses
Affirming denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Section 3006A - Adequate representation of defendants
18 U.S.C. § 3006A Cited 17,654 times 13 Legal Analyses
Granting defendants an ex parte forum to request reimbursement for supplemental services

USA v. Springer et al

13 Cited authorities

Holding that States need not provide appointed counsel in post-conviction proceedings

Holding that the filing of a notice of appeal "confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal"

Holding that a district court could not use inherent authority to extend a plain and unambiguous Rule of Criminal Procedure that limited district court’s authority to enter a judgment of acquittal to seven days

Holding that, unless alternative sources of assistance are provided, prisoners must be allowed access to inmate "writ-writers"

Holding that writ of error coram nobis was appropriate vehicle for prisoner's request that prior conviction be vacated for failure to advise him of his right to counsel, and where "no other remedy [was] then available and sound reasons exist[ed] for failure to seek appropriate earlier relief"

Holding that Rule 33's time limitations cabin the district courts' power to grant a new trial

Holding that no Sixth Amendment right to counsel exists for a defendant filing a post-conviction, post-appeal Rule 33 motion and that, in deciding whether to appoint counsel, the district court should consider "the complexity of the issue presented" in that Rule 33 motion

Holding district court's failure to hold a timely pretrial release hearing was moot in light of defendant's subsequent conviction

Affirming denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

Granting defendants an ex parte forum to request reimbursement for supplemental services