James Eddie Garrett v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that in order for a § 2255 motion to be second or successive, it “must have been denied on the merits”
• distinguishing the situation in Garrett from that in Felder by noting that there was no indication that Garrett was attempting to “obtain a tactical advantage in the face of impending defeat”
• “[I]n order for a habeas petition to be considered successive, the previous motion must have been denied on the merits.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).