Legal Opinion

Contino v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided July 24, 2008No. Docket 08-1575-prPublishedCited by 79 opinions

1Per curiam

In August 2007, John Contino, through counsel, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his guilty plea and sentence, alleging that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his plea was not voluntary and intelligent because his trial counsel failed to give him sufficient advice and information. The district court denied the § 2255 motion, and this appeal followed. In addition to seeking a COA on those two claims, Contino argues that the district court erred by not holding an evi-dentiary hearing on the issue of whether his trial counsel explained the elements of the RICO…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Miller-El v. CockrellSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  3. Bowles v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  4. Becker v. MontgomerySupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  5. Roy A. Somlyo v. J. Lu-Rob Enterprises, Inc. And Louis G. BondCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991

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

3Cited by79 opinions

  1. Platinum-Montaur Life Sciences, LLC v. Navidea Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019
  2. Pettaway v. National Recovery SolutionsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2020
  3. Puglisi v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2009
  4. Royall v. National Ass'n of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIOCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2008
  5. Pietrangelo v. Alvas Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2012

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

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

Powered by the Exa API