Legal Opinion
In Re: Smith
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided April 9, 2002No. 01-3073PublishedCited by 66 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge ROGERS.
ROGERS, Circuit Judge:
For Richard A. Smith, the remedy afforded under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate. Seeking authorization to file a second motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, as amended by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AED-PA”), 1 Smith demonstrates that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) is unlawful in view of the court’s interpretation of the substantive provisions of that statute. Nevertheless, the government contends, he fails to make a prima facie showing under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C) as § 2255…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Bousley v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- New Hampshire v. MaineSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Bailey v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Felker v. TurpinSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by66 opinions
- Charles Bruce v. Warden Lewisburg USPCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2017
- Dudley Bryant, Jr. v. Warden, FCC Coleman - MediumCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2013
- United States v. McCoyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2021
- Marcus Jones v. Dewayne HendrixCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2021
- United States v. Smith, RichardCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2006
61 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.