Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ezell v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

January 23, 2015

TERRY LAMELL EZELL, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

Submitted: December 11, 2014 [1], Seattle, Washington

As Corrected January 23, 2015.

SUMMARY[**]

Habeas Corpus

The panel denied a motion for certification to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to set aside a sentence imposed under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

The panel held that when a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) to file a second or successive petition presents a complex issue, this court may exceed the thirty-day time limit set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(D) for granting or denying the authorization.

The panel held that the Supreme Court did not announce a new rule of constitutional law in Descamps v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013), but rather clarified -- as a matter of statutory interpretation -- application of the ACCA in light of existing precedent.

COUNSEL

Howard Lee Phillips, Esq., Phillips Law LLC, Seattle, Washington; Jonathan D. Libby, Esq., Deputy Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, California, for Petitioner.

Carl Andrew Colasurdo, Assistant United States Attorney, Seattle, Washington; Michael Symington Morgan, Assistant United States Attorney, Seattle, Washington, for Respondent.

Before: M. Margaret McKeown, Richard C. Tallman, and John B. Owens, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

Page 763

Application to File Second or Successive Petition Under 28 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.