Legal Opinion
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio DUARTE-HIGAREDA, Defendant-Appellant
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided October 19, 1995No. 94-55970PublishedCited by 59 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings in the United States District Courts states that “[i]f an evidentiary hearing is required, the judge shall appoint counsel for [an indigent] movant....” Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, 28 U.S.C. foil. § 2255 (emphasis added). All of the circuits that have discussed the issue agree that the rule makes the appointment of counsel mandatory when evidentiary hearings are required. See United States v. Vasquez, 7 F.3d 81, 84 (5th Cir.1993) (indigent movant entitled to appointed counsel for evidentiary hearing…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Howard L. Bashor v. Henry Risley, Warden of Montana State Prison and Michael Greely, Attorney General for the State of MontanaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
- United States v. VasquezCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1993
- Paul H. Rauter v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1989
3Cited by59 opinions
- Bucci v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2011
- UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio DUARTE-HIGAREDA, Defendant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
- UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Curtis TOWNSEND, A/K/A Curtis Andre Townsend, Defendant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- United States v. Paul Iasiello, Paul G. IasielloCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999
- Graham v. PortuondoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2007
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.