Legal Opinion
United States v. Ortiz, Lionel
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided February 24, 1998No. 96-3123PublishedCited by 42 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ROGERS, Circuit Judge:
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), a defendant seeking to file a second motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence must first obtain an order from the appropriate court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider the motion. See 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). Before AEDPA was enacted, Lionel Ortiz filed his first motion under § 2255, while the direct appeal of his criminal convictions was pending, claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel in violation…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Murray v. CarrierSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- United States v. FradySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Landgraf v. USI Film ProductsSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Lindh v. MurphySupreme Court of the United States · 1997
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- United States v. BarrettCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1999
- Buehl v. VaughnCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999
- Gary Graham, Now Known as Shaka Sankofa v. Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional DivisionCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1999
- Daniels v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2001
- United States v. Orozco-RamirezCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2000
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.