Contreras v. Schiltgen’s Empirical Analysis
151 F.3d 906 · 1998
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably Broomes v. Ashcroft (2004), Drakes v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (2003)
9 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (§ 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1251 (§ 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Gideon v. Wainwright · Custis v. United States · Maleng v. Cook · Maljack Productions, Inc. v. Goodtimes Home Video Corp. · Feldman v. Perrill
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Feldman was decided before Custis . Although Feldman appears to authorize federal review of the constitutionality of state convictions relied upon by federal courts to enhance federal sentences, its reach has clearly been narrowed by Custis . Under Custis , as interpreted by Clawson , we must hold that when a habeas petition attacks the use of a prior conviction as a basis for INS custody, and the prior sentence has expired, federal habeas review is limited. When the federal proceeding is governed by statutes that limit inquiry to the fact of conviction, there can be no collateral review of the validity of the underlying conviction except for Gideon claims.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]e read Custis to bar federal habeas review of the validity of a prior conviction used for federal sentencing enhancement unless the petitioner raises a Gideon claim.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“may not collaterally attack his state court conviction in a habeas proceeding against the INS”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.