Diane Barnickel 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 challenge to restitution component of sentence is not cognizable on collateral review because order to pay restitution does not constitute “custody”
• recognizing availability of coram nobis for restitution challenges not cognizable under § 2255
• holding § 2255 does not permit restitution challenges since a restitution order does not constitute “custody’’
• noting that a petitioner in custody but without recourse under § 2255 could use the writ of coram nobis to challenge a restitution order
• recognizing availability of coram nobis for restitution challenges not cognizable under § 2255
• stating that Section 2255 is “not available to challenge an order of restitution imposed as part of a criminal sentence” because “the relief requested in such a case [does] not qualify as a ‘right to be released’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).