Legal Opinion

United States v. Redd (Shue)

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided November 5, 2013No. 13-2971PublishedCited by 38 opinions

1Per curiam

Pro se motion to recall mandates is deemed a successive motion and denied because Alleyne v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013), does, not announce a new rule of Constitutional law that has been made retroactive by the Supreme Court.

Peter Shue, pro se, moves to- recall this Court’s mandates related to his conviction, and to reinstate his direct appeal in order to seek relief under the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Alleyne v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013). He also seeks appointment of counsel. For the reasons stated below, we…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Teague v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Alleyne v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  4. Harris v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  5. Calderon v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1998

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

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. Washington, T., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  2. United States v. WinkelmanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2014
  3. Commonwealth, Aplt v. Dimatteo, P.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
  4. In re: John Ruthell HenryCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2014
  5. United States v. Thomas ReyesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2014

33 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