Berkman v. Indiana

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that the movant’s claim did not rely on Johnson for purposes of Section 2255(h) “because his sentence was not in any way predicated on the portion of the ACCA invalidated by that case”
• “[the Court] must first evaluate whether [the petitioner’s] successive § 2255 motion satisfies the statutory requirements governing successive habeas petitions; if the motion fails to satisfy those threshold requirements, we need not reach the merits of his claim”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).