Dominick Cacoperdo v. Peter Demosthenes the Attorney General of the State of Nevada

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that a reply “is 25 not the proper pleading to raise additional grounds for relief”
• concluding a state court’s sentence 18 determination was “matter of state criminal procedure and is not within the purview of 19 federal habeas corpus”
• stating that a reply in support of a petition “is not the proper pleading to raise additional grounds for relief’
• holding Sixth Amendment witness interference claim fails without showing of relevance and materiality
• finding new claims raised in a traverse were 14 not properly presented to district court and not cognizable on appeal
• notwithstanding petitioner’s characterization of claim as due process violation, claim was 8 matter of state criminal procedure not within purview of federal habeas court

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).