Crone v. Cockrell

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 district court lacks jurisdiction to address a successive motion without authorization from the court of appeals
• holding that the district court “did not have subject matter jurisdiction over Crone’s [successive § 2255] application because Crone did not obtain an order from this Court authorizing the district court to consider the successive application”
• “§ 2244(b)(3)(A) “acts as a jurisdictional bar to the district court’s asserting jurisdiction over any successive habeas petition until [the Fifth Circuit] has granted the petitioner permission to file one”
• ““[Section] 2244(b)(3)(A) acts as a jurisdictional bar to the district court’s asserting jurisdiction over any successive habeas petition until [the Fifth Circuit] has granted the petitioner permission to file one’”
• ““[Section] 2244(b)(3)(A) acts as a jurisdictional bar to the district court’s asserting jurisdiction over any successive habeas petition until [the Fifth Circuit] has granted the petitioner permission to file one’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).