United States v. Hammond
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
While not yet addressed by the D.C. Circuit, other circuit courts have considered whether a § 2255 motion attacking the mandatory Guidelines' residual clause is timely if filed within a year of Johnson . The Third, Fourth, Sixth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits have interpreted Johnson as strictly limited to the ACCA and rejected petitions that, like Hammond's, challenged the mandatory Guidelines' residual clause, as "untimely." See United States v. Blackstone , 903 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th Cir. 2018) ("As of now, however, Blackstone's motion is untimely."); United States v. Green , 898 F.3d 315, 322-23…
2Cases cited72 opinions
- United States v. BookerSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Teague v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Bousley v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Alleyne v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
- Mathis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
67 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Shea v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2020
- United States v. GoodridgeDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2019
- Poindexter v. Warden, FCI Yazoo CityDistrict Court, S.D. Mississippi · 2019
- United States v. ArringtonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2024
- United States v. ArringtonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2019
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.