Legal Opinion
United States v. Pedraza
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided October 25, 2006No. 05-2141PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
EBEL, Circuit Judge.
Enrique Pedraza appeals from an order of the district court in this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 case denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. The motion sought reconsideration of the district court’s order construing his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion as a successive application under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We conclude, pursuant to our decision in Spitznas v. Boone, 464 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir.2006), that the motion for reconsideration was itself in part a second § 2255 motion, and in part a “true” Rule 59(e) motion. We therefore now (1) affirm in part the denial of the Rule 59(e) motion; (2) vacate…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Spitznas v. BooneCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2006
- United States v. NelsonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2006
- United States v. Alphonso Pedraza, United States of America v. Peter Brent Irelan, United States of America v. Enrique PedrazaCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1994
- United States v. John Gregory LambrosCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2005
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Blystone v. HornCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2011
- Howard v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
- Kirk Rishor v. Bob FergusonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
- Williams v. ThalerCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2010
- Ochoa v. SirmonsCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2007
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.