Clarence Walker v. Thomas P. Roth

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 habeas petition which seeks to raise only new issues arising from a resentencing is not \second or successive\ for purposes of the AEDPA
• holding that a petition challenging aspects of resentencing that could not have been raised in the first petition is not a second or successive petition within the meaning of § 2254
• holding second habeas petition attacking for first time constitutionality of newly imposed sentence is not second or successive
• “None of these new claims were raised in his first petition, nor could they have been; Cite as: 561 U. S. (2010
• “None of these new claims were raised in his first petition, nor could they have been; [the petitioner] is attempting to challenge the constitutionality of a proceeding which obviously occurred after he filed, and obtained relief, in his first habeas petition”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).