28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus

254 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Mazen AL Najjar v. Ashcroft
  273 F.3d 1330· 11th Cir.· 2001-11-28 ·cited 101×
  Mazen Al Najjar, a Palestinian refugee and engineering doctorate holder, was ordered deported after overstaying his student visa, and the government detained him without bond based on classified information alleging ties to Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a terrorist organization. The
• Miller v. Henman
  804 F.2d 421· 7th Cir.· 1986-10-31 ·cited 42×
  Internal Bureau of Prisons policies and procedures, not promulgated as formal rules under the Administrative Procedure Act, do not create a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest for prisoners regarding their place of confinement or classification.
• Meir Kahane v. Carlson
  527 F.2d 492· 2d Cir.· 1975-11-26 ·cited 38×
  The court held that venue was proper in the Eastern District of New York because the prisoner's continuing probation obligations made that district his residence for venue purposes, and that prison authorities must provide a diet sufficient to sustain the prisoner without violati
• Williams v. Warden, Fed. Bureau OF Prisons
  713 F.3d 1332· 11th Cir.· 2013-04-11 ·cited 37×
  Albert Williams appealed the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging his 293-month sentence for felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), enhanced by the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Williams argued that his 1989 and 1990 Florida bur
• Amodeo v. FCC Coleman - Low Warden
  984 F.3d 992· 11th Cir.· 2021-01-08 ·cited 29×
  A federal prisoner's claim of actual innocence is cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and therefore, a § 2241 petition is not available under the saving clause exception.
• Fernandez v. United States
  941 F.2d 1488· 11th Cir.· 1991-09-18 ·cited 28×
  Fernando Fernandez, convicted of racketeering and marijuana conspiracy and sentenced to twelve years in prison, sought collateral relief based on a severe heart condition diagnosed as terminal coronary artery disease. He filed motions under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b
• Crow v. United States
  555 F.2d 183· 8th Cir.· 1977-05-12 ·cited 27×
  A sentencing judge's mistaken belief about the effect of parole guidelines, promulgated before sentencing, does not constitute a 'critical error' allowing sentence modification under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
• Goga Djadju v. Vega
  32 F. 4th 1102· 11th Cir.· 2022-04-28 ·cited 26×
  The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot and vacated the district court's judgment because the petitioner's release from detention rendered the case non-justiciable, as he sought only release and did not demonstrate any ongoing collateral consequences.
• Edwards v. United States
  574 F.2d 937· 8th Cir.· 1978-03-13 ·cited 26×
• DE LA Teja v. United States
  321 F.3d 1357· 11th Cir.· 2003-02-21 ·cited 25×
  Carlos De La Teja, a Cuban national paroled into the United States during the Mariel boatlift, was convicted of drug and property crimes in 1996 and deported after serving his sentence. He challenged his pre-removal detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) as violating the Fifth Amendm
• United States v. Larry W.G. Giddings
  740 F.2d 770· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-17 ·cited 25×
  The court held that a motion for correction of sentence under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a) or a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is not the proper vehicle to challenge the execution of a sentence, and that review of sentence execution must be sought via a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.
• Kramer v. O.C. Jenkins
  803 F.2d 896· 7th Cir.· 1986-10-15 ·cited 24×
  The Parole Commission may rely on an IRS Deficiency Notice to determine tax liability for parole purposes, provided the taxpayer is afforded due process.
• United States v. Clinkenbeard
  542 F.2d 59· 8th Cir.· 1976-09-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the section 2255 petition and dismissed the due process claim for lack of jurisdiction.
• Addonizio v. United States
  573 F.2d 147· 3d Cir.· 1978-02-27 ·cited 22×
  Sentencing courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to grant relief when subsequent changes in parole criteria frustrate the sentencing judge's original intentions and expectations, regardless of the specific statute under which the sentence was imposed.
• Smith v. United States Parole Comm'n
  875 F.2d 1361· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-17 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a parolee is not entitled to credit on his federal sentence for time served in state custody due to alleged administrative error by federal authorities or financial inability to post bail, nor is a parole regulation considered a 'law' for ex post facto clause
• Hajduk v. United States
  764 F.2d 795· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-01 ·cited 19×
  A challenge to parole commission actions, not the original sentence, must be brought via habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, not a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
• Nimrod T. Solomon v. Benson
  563 F.2d 339· 7th Cir.· 1977-10-06 ·cited 16×
  A federal prisoner is not entitled to a due process hearing prior to being classified as a special offender, as such classification does not deprive them of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest.
• United States v. Brown
  753 F.2d 455· 5th Cir.· 1985-02-21 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the prisoner's motion for presentence credit, vacating the judgment and remanding for dismissal.
• Pinedo v. United States
  955 F.2d 12· 5th Cir.· 1992-02-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the prior interpretation of "in custody" under 18 U.S.C. § 3568 applies to the current statute 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), meaning credit is not given for time spent on restrictive pre-trial release.
• Perry v. U.S. Parole Comm'n
  831 F.2d 811· 8th Cir.· 1987-10-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Parole Commission could properly consider a dismissed federal charge as a basis for parole revocation and that any variance in the charges listed was technical and nonprejudicial, thus affirming the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
• Eldson McGHEE v. Hanberry
  604 F.2d 9· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-03 ·cited 14×
  A prior unsuccessful motion to vacate sentence under § 2255 is insufficient, on its own, to demonstrate the inadequacy of that remedy, thus precluding a § 2241 habeas corpus petition.
• Pope v. Sigler
  542 F.2d 460· 8th Cir.· 1976-09-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court properly denied the petitioner's § 2255 motion, affirming the denial of relief under Kortness and dismissing the due process claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
• United States v. Leath
  711 F.2d 119· 8th Cir.· 1983-07-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the denial of the motion to correct the presentence report.
• Holland v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  941 F.3d 1285· 11th Cir.· 2019-11-01 ·cited 10×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court correctly dismissed Holland's third federal habeas petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it was a successive petition that failed to obtain prior authorization from the court of appeals.
• Tucker v. Carlson
  925 F.2d 330· 9th Cir.· 1991-02-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a federal prisoner's civil rights complaint challenging the fact or duration of confinement must be construed as a habeas corpus petition, and claims for damages as a Bivens action.
• Doganiere v. United States
  914 F.2d 165· 9th Cir.· 1990-09-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's failure to attach required findings to the presentence report was a ministerial error that could be corrected by ordering the report amended, and that the prisoner's other claims lacked merit.
• Blue v. Lacy
  857 F.2d 479· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-20 ·cited 10×
  The Parole Commission may consider disputed allegations of criminal activity in a PSI, even if the sentencing court disregarded them, if the Commission finds the information sufficiently accurate for its purposes.
• Hatton v. T.M. Keohane
  693 F.2d 88· 9th Cir.· 1982-11-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Regional Parole Commissioner did not exceed his authority in modifying the presumptive parole release date.
• Young v. United States Parole Comm'n
  682 F.2d 1105· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Parole Commission's classification of offense severity, calculation of parole hearing dates, aggregation of consecutive sentences, and failure to provide Miranda warnings were all within its statutory authority and did not violate the petitioner's rights.
• Brady v. U. S. Parole Comm'n
  600 F.2d 234· 9th Cir.· 1979-07-05 ·cited 10×
  The appeal is dismissed as moot because the appellant has been released on parole and does not challenge the validity of his conviction.
• Sheary v. United States Parole Comm'n
  822 F.2d 556· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Parole Commission's application of updated guidelines did not violate the ex post facto clause, its severity classification was proper, and the disparate treatment of a codefendant did not violate due process.
• Garafola v. G.C. Wilkinson
  721 F.2d 420· 3d Cir.· 1983-11-15 ·cited 8×
  A federal prisoner paroled to a state detainer under 28 C.F.R. § 2.32(a)(2) is considered 'paroled' under the Parole Act, and thus the Parole Commission can deny credit for time spent in state prison upon revocation for a new offense.
• United States v. Monteer
  556 F.2d 880· 8th Cir.· 1977-06-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction because the petitioner's challenge concerned the manner of sentence execution, not the sentence itself, and the custodian was not within the court's territorial jurisdiction.
• Veronza L. Bowers, Jr. v. Keller
  651 F.3d 1277· 11th Cir.· 2011-08-26 ·cited 7×
  Veronza Bowers, serving a life sentence for a 1976 murder of a U.S. Park Ranger, challenged the Parole Commission's denial of his mandatory parole eligibility after 30 years of incarceration. The Parole Commission reopened his case twice in 2005: first on February 17 to consider
• United States v. Cleto
  956 F.2d 83· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-05 ·cited 7×
  The court held that time spent on release on bond pending trial and appeal does not constitute "official detention" for which sentence credit can be granted under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b).
• United States v. Firooz Jalili
  925 F.2d 889· 6th Cir.· 1991-02-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in vacating the original sentence because the designation of the place of confinement was surplusage and the challenge to the execution of the sentence was not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
• Lewis v. Martin
  880 F.2d 288· 10th Cir.· 1989-07-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the original section 235(b)(3) of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 did not entitle prisoners to release within their guideline range, but rather was a phase-out provision for the Parole Commission.
• United States v. Garcia-Gutierrez
  835 F.2d 585· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a federal sentence cannot be credited for time served in state custody on an unrelated offense prior to the federal detainer or federal sentence, absent specific federal designation of the state facility.
• Berg v. United States Parole Comm'n
  735 F.2d 378· 9th Cir.· 1984-06-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Parole Commission correctly denied credit for time served on an intervening state conviction and correctly computed the salient factor score for reparole purposes.
• United States v. Lacy
  586 F.2d 1258· 8th Cir.· 1978-11-09 ·cited 6×
  Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is available when parole guidelines thwart a sentencing judge's intent for early parole consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 4208(a)(2), but only if specific conditions are met.
• Bradley v. Ivey
  2010 WL 5476712· M.D. Fla.· 2024-05-16 ·cited 5×
  The court held that federal courts must abstain from interfering with pending state court proceedings absent exceptional circumstances, and the petitioner failed to allege such circumstances.
• United States v. Gabor
  905 F.2d 76· 5th Cir.· 1990-07-05 ·cited 4×
  A federal prisoner seeking credit for time served on probation against a sentence imposed after revocation of probation must file a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district where he is incarcerated, not a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in th
• Peak v. Petrovsky
  734 F.2d 402· 8th Cir.· 1984-05-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Parole Commission acted within its discretion by considering conduct underlying dismissed counts for offense severity classification, and that the Government did not breach the plea agreement.
• Brown v. United States
  2022 WL 3544312· S.D. Fla.· 2023-02-16 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a petitioner must exhaust administrative remedies with the Bureau of Prisons before filing a § 2241 petition, even if on supervised release.
• Davis v. Lane
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-12-14 ·cited 3×
  The court denied the motion for reconsideration because the petitioner failed to present newly discovered evidence or demonstrate manifest errors of law or fact, and his claim for transfer to home confinement is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
• Parviz v. Fed. Detention Ctr. Miami
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-09-10 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration, finding she failed to present new evidence or demonstrate manifest error of law or fact, and that her arguments were either untimely or legally insufficient.
• Gonzalez v. United States
  2023 WL 4110233· S.D. Fla.· 2023-07-05 ·cited 2×
  A federal prisoner cannot use the § 2241 saving clause to circumvent the bar on second or successive § 2255 motions when the claim arises from a new interpretation of statutory law.
• Chatman v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Medium
  2018 WL 795732· M.D. Fla.· 2022-03-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a federal inmate cannot use a § 2241 petition to challenge his sentence when § 2255 is an adequate remedy.
• United States v. Noriega
  695 F. Supp. 2d 1358· S.D. Fla.· 2007-09-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the defendant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging extradition and lifted the previously granted stay of extradition.
• Tyler v. United States
  929 F.2d 451· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-13 ·cited 2×
  The Good Time Credits Act of 1986 (GTCA) did not impliedly repeal the prior statute requiring parole violators to forfeit street time credit.