In re: Michael Perez

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that neither Lafler nor Frye announced a new rule of constitutional law under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) ––which is substantially similar to § 2244(d)(1)(C
• holding Lafler was merely an application of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel
• “Lafler and Frye are not new rules because they were dictated by Strickland.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).