Legal Opinion
Benito Jiminian, - V- John Nash, Warden Fci Ray Brook
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided April 2, 2001No. Docket 00-3758PublishedCited by 340 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judge:
On December 11, 2000, Benito Jiminian, pro se, applied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 for an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In his application, Jiminian conceded that he had a prior § 2255 motion dismissed on the merits and that he could not meet the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (“AEDPA”) certification requirements for filing a second or successive § 2255 motion. Nonetheless, Jiminian sought to have his case remanded to the district…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Bailey v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- In Re Avery W. Vial, MovantCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1997
- Bradshaw v. StoryCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1996
- Ben Gary Triestman v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1997
- Miguel Dejesus Liriano v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1996
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by340 opinions
- Woodall v. Federal Bureau of PrisonsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2005
- Orville Cephas v. John Nash, Warden, Ray Brook Federal Correctional InstitutionCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2003
- Dan Carmichael McCarthan v. Director of Goodwill Industries-Suncoast, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2017
- Addones Spencer v. Anthony HaynesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2014
- Elliott Levine v. Craig ApkerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2006
335 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.