Stephen Scott Crooker v. United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
BAILEY ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Judge.
Defendant Crooker appeals an adverse decision in this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 attack on his sentence, claiming inadequate representation by counsel. We find his contentions fully answered by the district court, except for one matter of consequence on which we part company with the court’s reasoning, but, nevertheless, affirm. 1 This issue arises from counsel’s not invoking the provisions of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IAD), a compact in which the federal government joins with the states in protecting prisoners’ rights. 18 U.S.C.App. See generally…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- United States v. MauroSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Carchman v. NashSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- United States v. Michael Roberts, United States of America v. Charles Williams, United States of America v. Stanley YelardyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1977
- United States v. Mohammed Y. ButtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1984
- United States v. Williams, Ronald Alfred, Ronald A. WilliamsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Pike v. GuarinoCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2007
- United States v. Dale Scott HunnewellCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1989
- United States v. Raymond Leon CurrierCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1987
- United States v. Charles E. TaylorCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1988
- State of Tennessee v. Michael Shane SpringerTennessee Supreme Court · 2013
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.