Raphael Donnell v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBye, Circuit Judge
I concur in the Court’s judgment affirming the district court’s denial of Donnell’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition because we are bound by Pierce v. United States, 686 F.3d 529, 534 (8th Cir.2012), and one panel cannot overrule another. I write separately because I disagree with Part II of the Court’s opinion.
The majority, in dicta, criticizes King v. United States, 595 F.3d 844 (8th Cir.2010), and concludes King incorrectly decided a guidelines interpretation question by improperly applying the rule of lenity. In reaching this conclusion, the majority was persuaded by United States v. Williams,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- King v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2010
- United States v. Santonio ParkerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2014
- United States v. Jesse Williams IIICourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2014
- United States of America, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Gregory Allen Peters, Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2000
- Patrick Pierce v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2012