United States v. Addonizio

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Section 2255 authorizes challenges to the lawfulness of a federal sentence, not to the lawfulness of the performance of judgment and sentence
• concluding that change in United States Parole Commission's parole policies did not effect a miscarriage of justice
• deciding that “there is no basis for enlarging the grounds for collateral attack to include claims” like Addonizio’s
• holding that in the absence of a constitutional violation, a § 2255 motion cannot be based on a Parole Board decision that frustrates the expectations of the sentencing judge
• holding that § 2255 authorizes challenges to the lawfulness of a federal sentence, not to the lawfulness of the performance of judgment and sentence
• holding that the defendants were not entitled to relief even though a post-sentencing change in the policies of the United States Parole Commission prolonged the defendants' imprisonment beyond the period intended by the sentencing judge

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).