Legal Opinion
In re: Clark
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided September 21, 2016No. 16-5081PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
In a previous order, we denied Richard Clark .authorization to file a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In re Clark, No. 16-5081, slip op. (10th Cir. July 29, 2016). In that order, we stated that our denial of authorization “ ‘shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition for rehearing or for a writ of certiorari.’” Id., slip op. at 3 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E)).
Clark has filed a “Petition for Rehearing and for Rehearing En Banc as to Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) Applies to Denial of…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Gonzalez v. CrosbySupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Castro v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Jose Evaristo Reyes-Requena v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2001
- Ben Gary Triestman v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1997
- Case v. HatchCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2013
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- United States v. SpringerCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017
- United States v. MurphyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2018
- In re: BarrettCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2016
- Bowe v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2026
- Sidney Upchurch v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2026