Blaik v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
BIRCH, Circuit Judge:
In this appeal from the denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, we determine whether a plea agreement, under which the petitioner specifically agreed to pay restitution to all victims of a fraudulent scheme, can be invalidated collaterally under Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411, 110 S.Ct. 1979, 109 L.Ed.2d 408 (1990). The district court ordered restitution in accordance with the plea agreement and denied the section 2255 motion on that basis. We reverse, vacate petitioner’s sentence as to the restitution, and remand.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In a thirty-count…
2Cases cited59 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Teague v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Maleng v. CookSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Jones v. CunninghamSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Peyton v. RoweSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Elbert W. Williamson v. Christine O. GregoireCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- United States v. GrimesCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1998
- United States v. HattenCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1999
- United States v. SiegelCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1998
- United States v. BishopDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama · 2002
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.