Christopher Stoufflet v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a prisoner was “procedurally barred from rais- ing arguments in a motion to vacate his sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, that he already raised and that [the court] rejected in his di- rect appeal”
• explaining that the “law-of-the-case doctrine” prevents “relitigation of issues that a court necessarily or by implication decided against the litigant” in a prior direct appeal
• explaining that the “law-of-the-case doctrine” prevents “relitigation of issues that a court necessarily or by implication decided against the litigant” in a prior direct appeal
• explaining that the procedural bar against relitigation in the § 2255 context is even more stringent than the law- of-the-case doctrine
• “It is long settled that a prisoner is procedurally barred from raising arguments in a [§ 2255 motion] that he already raised and that we rejected in his direct appeal.”
• “It is long settled that a prisoner is procedurally barred from raising arguments in a motion to vacate his sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, that he already raised and that we rejected in his direct appeal.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).