John C. Wims 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.

• noting that the District Court erred by focusing on petitioner’s conduct beginning on the day of AEDPA’s passage because “the district court’s approach deprived petitioner of the one year during which, under AEDPA, he was entitled to rest on his claim.”
• Due diligence is a particularized inquiry and only demands that the petitioner, under the specific circumstances, acted reasonably.
• date on which movant could have discovered his attorney’s failure to file an appeal is a fact-specific inquiry
• “[D]ue diligence plainly did not require Wims to check up on his counsel’s pursuit of an appeal on ... the very day on which Wims’ conviction became final absent appeal.”
• “[D]ue diligence plainly did not require Wims to check up on his counsel’s pursuit of an appeal on . . . the very day on which Wims’ conviction became final absent appeal.”
• describing the due diligence standard in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(4)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).