Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Raphael Donnell v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided August 26, 2014No. 12-3465Published

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

  1. King v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2010
  2. United States v. Santonio ParkerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2014
  3. United States v. Jesse Williams IIICourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2014
  4. United States of America, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Gregory Allen Peters, Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2000
  5. Patrick Pierce v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2012

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

Powered by the Exa API