Legal Opinion

United States v. George Hopkins

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided June 3, 2014No. 13-3522UnpublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge.

George Hopkins seeks relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2255 based upon a claim that his trial counsel was ineffective by asserting that the sentencing judge lacked the authority to run his federal sentence concurrent with a yet-to-be-imposed state sentence. He asserts that the Supreme Court’s decision in Setser v. United States, -U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 1463, 182 L.Ed.2d 455 (2012), demonstrates that such authority existed and that he is entitled to relief. Focusing as we must on the law as it existed at the time of sentencing, we conclude that defense counsel was not…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Teague v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Chaidez v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  4. Caspari v. BohlenSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  5. Glover v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2001

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Mound v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. South Dakota · 2017
  2. Shifley v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri · 2020
  3. United States v. DanielDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2020
  4. United States v. WilsonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2019

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

Powered by the Exa API