United States v. Christopher Vialva

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “reasonable jurists could not disagree with the district court’s disposition of any of Bernard’s and Vialva’s claims,” including the court’s decision to deny an evidentiary hearing and further discovery
• finding that the district court's rejection of Bernard's and Vialva's ineffective assistance of counsel claims was \not reasonably debatable\
• finding that the district court’s rejection of Bernard’s and Vialva’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims was “not reasonably debatable”
• explaining that “[w]e need not address” what is “foreclosed by precedent”
• because decisions regarding cross-examination are strategic, they usually will not support a claim of ineffective assistance
• “Because decisions regarding cross-examination are strategic, they usually ‘will not support an ineffective assistance claim.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).