Legal Opinion

Fraser v. Zenk

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided March 3, 2004No. Nos. 00-3883, 02-2367PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

McKEE, Circuit Judge.

Petitioners Fraser and Hernandez filed petitions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to collaterally attack their sentences. Both petitions were dismissed based on the courts’ determination that they could not petition under section 2241 and must instead pursue second petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The petitioners appealed. They argue that the length of their sentences is illegal and they can collaterally attack them sentences under section 2241 because they meet the criteria for the safety-valve provision of section 2255. We will affirm.1

I

Because we write only for the…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Davis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. United States v. HaymanSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
  4. In Re Ocsulis DorsainvilCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1997
  5. Mario Lenardo Cradle v. United States of America, Ex Rel. John Miner, Warden, Allenwood Federal Prison CampCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2002

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Fraser v. Zenk, WardenSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. Mainor v. Warden, FCC Allenwood LowDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2020
  3. Ray v. FinleyDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2019

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

Powered by the Exa API