AURELIO O. GONZALEZ, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, JAMES CROSBY, SECRETARY, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE; EMIL LAZO, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE; STEPHEN A. MOBLEY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, V. FREDERICK HEAD, WARDEN, GEORGIA DIAGNOSTIC AND CLASSIFICATION CENTER, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
BY THE COURT: The Court has determined to hear the following cases en banc: Mobley v. Head, No. 02-14224, Lazo v. U.S., No. 02-12483, and Gonzalez v. Sec’y for the Dept. of Corrections, No. 02-12054. The cases will be orally argued before the Court sitting en banc on June 17, 2003, in Atlanta, Georgia. The Court sua sponte VACATES the following orders: the December 16, 2002, Order issued in Lazo v. U.S., No. 02-12483, as well as the January 10, 2003 and the August 15, 2002, Orders issued in Gonzalez v. Sec’y for the Dept. of Corrections, No. 02-12054. Nos. 02-12483 and 02-12054 are hereby REINSTATED. Counsel for Appellants Lazo and Gonzalez will be appointed by separate Order. In light of the above, Appellant Gonzalez’ “Motion to Reconsider, Vacate or Modify” is DENIED AS MOOT.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aurelio O. Gonzalez v. Sec'y FOR THE Dep't OF Corr., 366 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2004)…some common questions that have arisen about the use of Rule 60(b) motions to obtain relief from judgments that denied § 2254 relief (in two of the cases before us), or § 2255 relief (in one of the cases). Gonzalez v. Sec’y of the Dep’t of Corr., 326 F. 3d 1175 (11th Cir.2003). Specifically, we asked each of the three would-be appellants to brief and argue, insofar as it related to his case: 1) whether the certificate of appealability requirement contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) applies to an attempted a…1 / 3
-
Etheria Verdell Jackson v. Crosby, 437 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2006)…2254 or [28 U.S.C.] § 2255 proceeding.” Gonzalez v. Sec’y for Dep’t of Corr., 366 F. 3d 1253, 1263 (11th Cir.2004) (“Gonzalez II”); see also Lazo v. United States, 314 F. 3d 571, 574 (11th Cir.2002), vacated by Gonzalez v. Sec’y for Dep’t of Corr., 326 F. 3d 1175 (11th Cir.2003) (“Gonzalez I”). The Supreme Court did not endorse this position, but it also did not disturb it. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, -U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 2650 n. 7, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005) (“Gonzalez III”). The question thus becomes whethe…
-
Brown v. Head, 349 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2003)…involving the scope of Rule 60(b) relief from a denial of federal habeas corpus petition, and whether a certificate of appealability is necessary to review the denial of Rule 60(b) relief in such circumstances. Gonzalez v. Sec’y for Dep't. of Corr., 326 F. 3d 1175, 1176 (11th Cir.2003) (setting Mobley v. Head, 306 F. 3d 1096 (11th Cir.2002), Lazo v. United States, 314 F. 3d 571 (11th Cir.2002), and Gonzalez v. Sec’y for the Dep't. of Corr., 317 F. 3d 1308 (11th Cir.2003) for hearing en banc). A decision in…