Mark K. Fuller 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 the defendant could not show prejudice because he merely relied on “‘allegations’” rather than “‘evidence’”
• explaining that a court will not reconsider the same issue “unless there is some good reason for reexamining it”
• noting that counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to anticipate Apprendi, Blakely, and Booker
• treating defendant’s ineffective assistance claims regarding trial counsel’s performance at sentencing as a separable “prong” of defendant’s ineffective assistance claim
• holding that a movant could not relitigate his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a § 2255 motion because the decision he relied on as an intervening change in law had “no relevance” to his case and gave the court “no reason to disturb the law of the case”
• rejecting an ineffective assistance claim where the defendant “failed to advance any specific valid ground upon which his counsel should have objected to the trial court’s [sentencing] enhancement”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).