United States v. Akers’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
8 district ·
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1631 · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Gonzalez v. Crosby · Castro v. United States · United States v. Winestock · Spitznas v. Boone · United States v. Lloyd
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although the Supreme Court in Castro held that a court cannot recharacterize a pro se motion as an initial § 2255 motion without first notifying the movant and allowing the movant to withdraw or amend the pleading, this Court need not do the same for a second or successive motion.” United States v. Akers, 519 F.Supp.2d 94 , 96 n. 3 (D.D.C.2007) (citing United States v. Lloyd, 398 F.3d 978, 980 (7th Cir.2005)). 3 . An exception to this rule is if the remedy in the sentencing court is”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.