United States v. Redd (Shue)
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
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
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Teague v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Alleyne v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
- Harris v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Calderon v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Commonwealth v. Washington, T., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
- United States v. WinkelmanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2014
- Commonwealth, Aplt v. Dimatteo, P.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
- In re: John Ruthell HenryCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2014
- United States v. Thomas ReyesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2014
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.