Legal Opinion
Harris v. United States
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided November 26, 2007No. Criminal Action 89-0036-02(RMU), 89-0036-05(RMU)PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Denying the Petitioners’
Motion to Reopen
RICARDO M. URBINA, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
This issue comes before the court on Lamar Harris and Gary Wyche’s joint motion to reopen. Although their motion is styled a motion to reopen pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), because the petitioners are challenging the period of their confinement and are seeking to vacate their current sentences, the court will treat the motion as a new motion to vacate their respective sentences pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 1 Because this court has no jurisdiction over successive §…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Gonzalez v. CrosbySupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Agostini v. FeltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Burton v. StewartSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- United States v. MitchellDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2013
- United States v. WilsonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2013
- United States v. GrossDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2010
- United States v. ZaiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2014
- Schumaker v. OrtizDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2020
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.