Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

125 F. App'x 317

In re Hinton

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided March 10, 2005

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2005-03-10

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently October 2009

1 federal appellate · 5 district ·

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on United States v. Booker · Blakely v. Washington · Green v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2005-03-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ORDER

PER CURIAM.

¶2Upon consideration of the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis; the motion for waiver of fees; and the motion for leave to file a successive motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and the opposition thereto, it is

¶3ORDERED that the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be granted. It is

¶4FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for waiver of fees be dismissed as moot. It is

¶5FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for leave to file a successive § 2255 motion be denied. The Supreme Court has not made either Blakely v. Washington, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), or United States v. Booker, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. See, e.g., Green v. United States, 397 F.3d 101, 2005 WL 237204, *1 (2d Cir. Feb.2, 2005) (denying motion for leave to file successive § 2255 motion because the Supreme Court has not made either Blakelyor Bookerretroactive to cases on collateral review); United States v. Anderson, 396 F.3d 1336 (11th Cir.2005) (same).

¶6Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.

/125/fappx/317 · .json · Public domain