Legal Opinion
In re: Michael Perez
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Decided May 25, 2012No. 12-12240PublishedCited by 57 opinions
1Per curiam
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3)(A), Michael Perez has filed an application seeking an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence. Such authorization may be granted only if this Court certifies that the second or successive motion contains a claim involving:(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Hill v. LockhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Teague v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- McMann v. RichardsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by57 opinions
- Commonwealth v. HernandezSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- Commonwealth v. FelicianoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- Leon Carmichael, Sr. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2020
- Demond L. Osley v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2014
- Jose Buenrostro v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.