Roccisano v. Menifee’s Empirical Analysis
293 F.3d 51 · 2002
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 963 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · United States v. Frady · McCleskey v. Zant · Von Moltke v. Gillies · Cardillo v. United States
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under § 2241, a prisoner may challenge the “execution of [his] sentence,” id. at 474 (emphasis in original), such as calculations by the Bureau of Prisons of the credit to be given for other periods of detention, or decisions to deny parole, see id. at 474-75 , or conditions of confinement, see, e.g., Jiminian v. Nash, 245 F.3d 144 , 146 (2d Cir.2001); Kingsley v. Bureau of Prisons, 937 F.2d 26 , 30 n. 5 (2d Cir.1991). Section 2255, on the other hand, is the proper vehicle when the federal prisoner seeks “to challenge the legality of the imposition of a sentence by a court.” Chambers v. United States, 106 F.3d at 474 (emphasis in original). As a “general rule,” when collaterally attacking a sentence on the ground that he was convicted in violation of the Constitution or federal law, “a federal prisoner must use § 2255.” Triestman v. United States, 124 F.3d 361 , 373 (2d Cir.1997) ...; see also Jiminian v. Nash, 245 F.3d at 146-47 (“[] § 2255 is generally the proper vehicle for a federal prisoner’s challenge to his conviction and sentence”).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Poindexter v. Nash
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.