Second Circuit· 9/14/2000

John C. Wims v. United States

Citations

225 F.3d 186
2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 23272

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).

Judges: Meskill, Calabresi, Katzmann

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

66 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.