HALL, NATALIE, PEOPLE v

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “the timeliness of [a movant’s] claim depends on whether he is asserting the right initially recognized in Johnson or whether he is asserting a different right that would require the creation of a second new rule”
• explaining that “the timeliness of [a movant’s] claim depends on whether he is asserting the right initially recognized in Johnson or whether he is asserting a different right that would require the creation of a second new rule”
• denying § 2255 relief and holding prisoner was not asserting a right based on Johnson because reasonable minds could debate whether Johnson announced a new rule of constitutional law applicable to the mandatory Guidelines
• \It is reasonably debatable whether Johnson's holding regarding the ACCA extends to the former mandatory guidelines.\
• “Johnson did not address the sentencing guidelines, andrBeckles rejected a vagueness challenge to the advisory guidelines.”
• “[T]he inquiry into whether a right is ‘newly recognized’ under § 2255(f)(3

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).