in Re: David E. Martin

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a defendant’s misclassification as a career offender under the mandatory Guidelines constitutes a fundamental defect
• holding that pre-Booker mandatory career offender sentencing error is sufficiently grave under Wheeler; distinguishing Foote
• holding that “a misapplied career offender enhancement” under the advisory guidelines would not be a fundamental defect for purposes of the savings clause in § 2241 petitions
• noting that Lester’s case was held in abeyance from 2013 to 2018 while the Fourth Circuit decided “three potentially relevant cases”’
• explaining that Fourth Circuit, in reliance on a Supreme Court decision, had issued a published decision changing the law and thus the second Wheeler prong was satisfied
• noting that petitioner could not meet § 2255(h)'s gatekeeping provisions because the case on which his claim was based was a “decision of statutory interpretation, not constitutional law’’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).