§Why CasetextPricing

Victor Gomez-Ortiz v. United States of America

REPLY To Opposition To Motion to Correct Sentence

37 Cited authorities

  1. Pace v. Diguglielmo

    544 U.S. 408 (2005)   Cited 12,835 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a five-month delay demonstrated a lack of diligence

  2. United States v. Wilson

    503 U.S. 329 (1992)   Cited 3,268 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) does not authorize the district court to compute the amount of credit at sentencing

  3. Miles v. Prunty

    187 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 1999)   Cited 1,674 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a prisoner was diligent where he waited over six weeks to re-submit a petition which prison officials never sent to the court

  4. Miller v. New Jersey State Dep't, Corrections

    145 F.3d 616 (3d Cir. 1998)   Cited 1,538 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that equitable tolling is an appropriate remedy when principles of equity would make a rigid application of the statute of limitations unfair

  5. Burgess v. United States

    553 U.S. 124 (2008)   Cited 284 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 802 provides the exclusive definition of the term "felony drug offense" in § 841(b)

  6. Calderon v. United States District Court

    128 F.3d 1283 (9th Cir. 1997)   Cited 1,361 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that AEDPA's statute of limitations was equitably tolled when the petitioner's counsel unexpectedly moved out of the state and left an unusable work product behind for replacement counsel

  7. Holloway v. United States

    526 U.S. 1 (1999)   Cited 344 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that conditional intent satisfies mens rea requirement of § 2119

  8. Dean v. United States

    556 U.S. 568 (2009)   Cited 255 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) doesn't require separate proof of intent

  9. United States v. Granderson

    511 U.S. 39 (1994)   Cited 257 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that discrete, differently worded probation and supervised release provisions should not be interpreted in pari materia

  10. Lott v. Mueller

    304 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 590 times
    Holding that the determination of equitable tolling is “ ‘highly fact dependent’ ” and may “involve the confluence of numerous factors beyond the prisoner's control”

  11. Section 2254 - State custody; remedies in Federal courts

    28 U.S.C. § 2254   Cited 204,651 times   341 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"

  12. Section 2255 - Federal custody; remedies on motion attacking sentence

    28 U.S.C. § 2255   Cited 129,482 times   129 Legal Analyses
    Adopting one-year limitations period for §2255 motions

  13. Section 2241 - Power to grant writ

    28 U.S.C. § 2241   Cited 80,526 times   55 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts authority to determine whether detention is "in violation of the . . . laws . . . of the United States"

  14. Section 2244 - Finality of determination

    28 U.S.C. § 2244   Cited 65,340 times   166 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 2255 incorporates § 2244(b) as part of the certification procedures of § 2244 and instructing that "the district court must dismiss the motion that we have allowed the applicant to file, without reaching the merits of the motion, if the court finds that the movant has not satisfied the requirements for the filing of such a motion."

  15. Section 3624 - Release of a prisoner

    18 U.S.C. § 3624   Cited 5,937 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Granting to the Bureau of Prisons the authority to order home confinement

  16. Section 3585 - Calculation of a term of imprisonment

    18 U.S.C. § 3585   Cited 4,076 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that " defendant shall be given credit . . . for any time . . . that has not been credited against another sentence"