Legal Opinion
Kapral v. United States
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided July 28, 1997No. Civil Action 97-2290(AMW)PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WOLIN, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court upon the motion of petitioner Michael Kapral (“Kapral”) to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. As a matter of first impression, the_Qourt determines that the one-year statute of limitations period under § 2255 begins to run on the date of the appeals court’s adjudication of the petitioner’s appeal. Because Kapral filed this motion after the limitations period expired, the Court will dismiss Kapral’s motion with prejudice.
BACKGROUND
On January 17, 1995, Kapral pled guilty to the following…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Rose v. LundySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Picard v. ConnorSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Ross v. MoffittSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- M. L. B. v. S. L. J.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- United States v. Christopher SimmondsCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Michael Kapral v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999
- Michael Dwayne Brown v. Ronald Angelone, Jesse James Pritchard, Jr. v. Ronald Angelone, DirectorCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1998
- United States v. DorseyDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1998
- Dietsch v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1998
- Galindo v. JohnsonDistrict Court, W.D. Texas · 1998
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.