Deidre Clark 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 an attempt to amend or supplement a prior habeas petition after its final adjudication is “really a second or successive habeas petition” “irrespective of its characterization.”
• explaining that when the defendant entered a nolo contendere plea and a guilty plea, “claims first presented in [the] postjudgment second motion to amend do not demonstrate that her conviction or indictment constituted ‘manifest injustice.’” (citation omitted)
• “[A] motion to amend a § 2255 motion [attacking a sentence] is generally governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
• “A habeas petition submitted during the pendency of an initial § 2255 motion should be construed as a motion to amend the initial motion.”
• “This court has not squarely considered whether mental illness can constitute cause excusing procedural default.”
• a motion seeking to assert a new claim “is not a second or successive § 2255 motion” under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).