In re: Weathersby

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 claim is not second or successive if the basis for the claim did not exist when prior proceedings under § 2255 were ongoing
• holding that a claim is not second or successive if the basis for the claim did not exist when prior proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 were ongoing
• explaining that movant’s second § 2255 motion wasn’t “second or successive” for purposes of § 2255(h
• explaining that movant’s second § 2255 motion wasn’t “second or successive” for purposes of § 2255(h
• claim based on alleged expungement of a prior offense did not qualify as a second or successive petition because the basis for the claim did not exist when the first petition was filed
• “Congress placed strict limitations on second or successive motions under § 2255[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).