Legal Opinion

United States v. Hammond

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided December 7, 2018No. Criminal Action No. 02-294 (BAH)PublishedCited by 16 opinions

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

  1. United States v. BookerSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. Teague v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Bousley v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  4. Alleyne v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  5. Mathis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2016

67 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Shea v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2020
  2. United States v. GoodridgeDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2019
  3. Poindexter v. Warden, FCI Yazoo CityDistrict Court, S.D. Mississippi · 2019
  4. United States v. ArringtonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2024
  5. United States v. ArringtonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2019

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API