John F. Kaminski 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 a restitution order requiring monthly payments of ten percent of monthly income or $100 “plainly does not come close” to satisfying the “in custody” requirement
• holding that a restitution order “limited . . . to payment on a monthly basis of the greater of ten percent of [petitioner’s] monthly income or $100” did not render a petitioner in custody
• holding a restitution order could not be challenged through habeas petition because a monetary fine was not a sufficient restraint on liberty to meet the ‘in custody’ requirement
• explaining that certificate of appealability must encompass all of “the issues raised by the district court’s alternative rulings”
• finding habeas challenge to the propriety of restitution order was not cognizable upon motion to vacate, even though defendant was in custody at time he filed 16 motion, where motion did not attack the imprisonment sentence, but only the restitution order
• “[C]ollateral relief from non-custodial punishments may be available to prisoners through the use of extraordinary writs such as coram nobis”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).