Phong Lam 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 defendant seeking to vacate his plea pursuant to Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010
• holding that a defendant seeking to vacate his plea pursuant to Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), must establish that he was present in the country lawfully at the time of the plea and that the plea at issue is the sole basis for the defendant’s deportation
• setting forth what a defendant is required to prove in order to be entitled to relief under Padilla where the standard may or could warning has been delivered
• listing the full set of pleading requirements for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010)
• “Where a movant has received the standard ‘may’ or ‘could’ deportation warning required by rule 3.172(c)(8), to state a claim for relief under Padilla, a movant must establish ... that, if the movant had been accurately advised, he or she would not have entered the plea.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).