Curtis C. Oliver 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 laches applies to a § 2255 proceeding if the delay was \inexcusable as well as prejudicial to the government\
• upholding district court’s holding that laches barred applicant’s postconviction motion based on the district court’s finding of an unexcused delay of seventeen years and prejudice to the government
• finding there was not ineffective assistance of Counsel where the Defendant only stated “conclusory allegations of attorney error”
• \This doctrine [of laches] requires more than mere delay — the [applicant's] delay must be inexcusable as well as prejudicial to the government.\
• petitioner’s 17-year delay in bringing § 2255 petition prejudiced the government’s ability to respond to the merits because of destruction of records after ten years
• “No hearing is required in a section 2255 proceeding if the motion raises no cognizable claim, if the allegations in the motion are unreasonably vague, conclusory, or incredible[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).