-
851 F.3d 1076·
11th Cir.·
2017-03-14
·cited 103×
The "saving clause" of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) allows a federal prisoner to seek habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 if the remedy by motion under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of detention. This inadequacy must be assessed at the time the § 2241 pe
-
916 F.2d 601·
11th Cir.·
1990-11-01
·cited 46×
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress or in its jury instructions, but did err in imposing consecutive sentences for possession of the same firearm under two subsections of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
-
941 F.3d 1018·
11th Cir.·
2019-10-28
·cited 41×
The court held that the defendant could not establish that the errors in his conviction affected his substantial rights, thus affirming his conviction.
-
32 F.4th 1080·
11th Cir.·
2022-04-28
·cited 7×
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the district court did not err in denying the motion for a new trial based on Brady material, denying the motion to suppress, or in its jury instructions, as any error was invited by the defendant.
-
947 F.2d 1263·
5th Cir.·
1991-11-18
·cited 6×
The court held that a defendant's prior convictions and conduct, even if unrelated to the specific offense of conviction, can establish that the offense of conviction presented a serious potential risk of physical injury to another, thus qualifying the defendant as a career offen
-
967 F.2d 1189·
8th Cir.·
1992-06-22
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motions to suppress evidence, admit prior bad acts evidence, exclude hearsay testimony, acquit, or grant a new trial.
-
958 F.2d 679·
6th Cir.·
1992-03-05
·cited 2×
The court held that the stop and frisk of the appellant was justified under Terry v. Ohio, and that his prior drug convictions, committed on different dates, constituted separate predicate offenses for sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
-
942 F.2d 873·
5th Cir.·
1991-09-10
·cited 2×
The court held that border patrol agents had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant's vehicle and that the subsequent search of his wallet was lawful, even though based in part on erroneous information, due to the good faith exception and the defendant's actions.
-
2023 WL 3404924·
M.D. Fla.·
2025-07-09
·cited 1×
The court held that the defendant's claims are procedurally barred or fail to meet the standards for ineffective assistance of counsel, and therefore denied his motion to vacate his conviction and sentence.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-03-08
The court held that the movant's Second Amendment and equal protection claims were procedurally defaulted and meritless, as 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is constitutional and the movant failed to show discriminatory prosecution.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-01-18
The court held that the plaintiff's claim was procedurally defaulted and that intervening case law did not alter this conclusion, thus denying the motion to vacate.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-04-14
The court held that the petitioner's motion to vacate his sentence was untimely and denied his claims, as the Rehaif decision did not apply retroactively and the petitioner failed to establish plain error affecting substantial rights.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-04-06
The court held that the petitioner's motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is denied because, despite an error in the indictment and plea colloquy regarding the knowledge-of-status element, the error did not affect his substantial rights, as he knew he was a felon
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-03-01
The court held that the petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence is denied because the claims are procedurally defaulted or without merit, and he has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-03-01
The court held that the petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence was untimely and lacked merit, and denied a certificate of appealability.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-05-18
The court held that a petitioner seeking to challenge a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is considered 'in custody' if the challenged sentence impacts the length of incarceration for other consecutive sentences, even if the challenged sentence itself has been fully served. The cou