In Re James Davenport and Sherman Nichols

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the Supreme Court’s decision in Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995
• holding that in order for section 2255 to be inadequate, the intervening change in law must elude the pre-clearance requirements for successive petitions
• holding that claim based on new statutory rule made retroactive by the Supreme Court may satisfy the savings clause, applying parallel standard to § 2255(h)(2)
• holding that section 2255 is inadequate when it does not allow a prisoner “a reasonable opportunity to obtain a reliable judicial determination of the fundamental legality of his conviction and sentence”
• holding that prisoner “has had multiple unobstructed procedural shots at his conviction and sentence”
• explaining that “it would make an arbitrary hole in the Antiterrorism Act” if the court were to accept an actual- innocence argument about “a sentence-enhancement statute”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).