Skip navigation

Punch and Jurists: February 2, 2015

Issue PDF
Volume 22, Number 2

In this issue:

  1. U.S. v. Dowell, No. 13-4576 (4th Cir.) (771 F.3d 162) (November 13, 2014) (Judge Paul W. Grimm) (p None)
  2. Abbott v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 12-35801 (9th Cir.) (771 F.3d 512) (October 27, 2014) (Judge Ronald M. Gould) (p None)
  3. U.S. v. Boswell, No. 13-3641 (7th Cir.) (772 F.3d 469) (November 26, 2014) (Judge William J. Bauer) (p None)
  4. U.S. v. Smith, No. 12-14842 (11th Cir.) (772 F.3d 680) (November 24, 2014) (Judge Edward E. Carnes) (p None)
  5. U.S. v. White, No. 13-4949 (4th Cir.) (771 F.3d 225) (November 17, 2014) (Judge William B. Jr. Traxler) (p None)
  6. Holt v. Hobbs, No. 13-6827 (U.S. Supreme Court) (575 U.S. ___; 135 S.Ct. 853) (January 20, 2015) (Justice Alito) (p None)
  7. Christeson v. Roper, No. 14-6873 (U.S. Supreme Court) (575 U.S. ___; 135 S.Ct. 891) (January 20, 2015) (Per Curiam) (p None)

U.S. v. Dowell, No. 13-4576 (4th Cir.) (771 F.3d 162) (November 13, 2014) (Judge Paul W. Grimm)

Abbott v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 12-35801 (9th Cir.) (771 F.3d 512) (October 27, 2014) (Judge Ronald M. Gould)

CASE SUMMARY

[1]-The claims presented in petitioner's initial habeas petition regarding the legality of the BOP's 2009 Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP) eligibility rule were rendered moot by the BOP's decision to admit him to the RDAP program; [2]-The district court erred when it held, on limited remand, that it ...

U.S. v. Boswell, No. 13-3641 (7th Cir.) (772 F.3d 469) (November 26, 2014) (Judge William J. Bauer)

U.S. v. Smith, No. 12-14842 (11th Cir.) (772 F.3d 680) (November 24, 2014) (Judge Edward E. Carnes)

U.S. v. White, No. 13-4949 (4th Cir.) (771 F.3d 225) (November 17, 2014) (Judge William B. Jr. Traxler)

Holt v. Hobbs, No. 13-6827 (U.S. Supreme Court) (575 U.S. ___; 135 S.Ct. 853) (January 20, 2015) (Justice Alito)

Christeson v. Roper, No. 14-6873 (U.S. Supreme Court) (575 U.S. ___; 135 S.Ct. 891) (January 20, 2015) (Per Curiam)

OVERVIEW: HOLDINGS: [1]-Petitioner's motion to substitute habeas counsel was improperly denied where his appointed attorneys had missed the filing deadline for filing his first habeas petition, petitioner's best argument for equitably tolling the limitations period was the attorneys' own failure to satisfy the AEDPA's statute of limitations, and thus, there ...